THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA EDUCATION SOCIETY
WA/1044/2024 · 2025-01-26
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Ravi Cheemalapati
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43211 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43211 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010460382024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1044 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-47 [3483]
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Education Society and Others ...Respondent(s)
********** Advocate for Appellant: GP for School Education Advocate for Respondent: Mr. C Sunil Kumar Reddy
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 7th October 2025 P C : I.A. No.1 of 2025 The present review petition has been filed seeking review of judgment and order, dated 27.01.2025, passed in W.A. No.1044 of 2024. While dismissing the writ appeal, we had opined that the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit of mid-day meal scheme for classes 8, 9 and 10 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.209, dated 24.03.2008, for the simple reason that it was situate in an educationally backward mandal. It is not out of place to mention that the mid-day meal scheme was otherwise envisaged in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 25.11.2002, which contemplated providing cooked meals for children from classes 1 to 7 in all Government and aided primary schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh. By
2 HCJ & RC, J io_wa_1044_2024
virtue of G.O.Rt.No.209, the benefit of the mid-day meal scheme was extended to students of classes 9 and 10 in all high schools of 737 educationally backward mandals.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the benefit of G.O.Rt.No.209 could be extended only to such schools, who were otherwise covered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94 and for that, the school had to be an aided school. It is also stated that since G.O.Rt.No.209 had extended the scheme otherwise envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.94, the basic criteria for grant of the benefit would remain the same as was otherwise envisaged in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.94 i.e., it had to be an aided school. In the present case, it was sought to be emphasized that the writ petitioner is running two schools. It was urged that insofar as SBNRM Aided Upper Primary School in Komarole is concerned, sanction for permanent recognition for classes 1 to 7 was granted on 01.06.1995 as an Aided Upper Primary School and insofar as SBNRM Aided Upper Primary School in Ramavaripalle, sanction for permanent recognition for classes 1 to 5 was granted with effect from 01.06.1995. This can be seen from the proceedings of District Education Officer, Ongole, dated 19.09.1995. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the review petitioner has drawn our attention to proceedings, dated 15.09.2019, issued by the Regional Director of School Education, Guntur, whereby the recognition was granted to the SBNRM High School, Komarole, Prakasam District, to run classes from class 8 to 10 for a period of ten years “without aid now or in future”. It is in this backdrop, learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that since the classes run by the writ petitioner from classes 8 to 10 were not granted recognition as an aided school, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.94 could not have been extended by virtue of or under the spirit of G.O.Rt.No.209.
3 HCJ & RC, J io_wa_1044_2024
On a perusal of the cause title of the writ petition, we also notice that the writ petitioner had described itself as SBNRM Aided High School, Kothapalle, Komarole Mandal, and SBNRM Aided High School, Gopanipalle, Komarole Mandal and were arrayed as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the action of the writ petitioner in describing itself as an Aided High School was clearly contrary to the records and it was based upon such a representation that the
order which is sought to be reviewed came to be passed.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks some time to respond to the submissions made by learned counsel for the review petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner is also at liberty to place on record the relevant material to establish his case that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.94 r/w G.O.Rt.No.209 is available to the institutions. List on 04.11.2025.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
akn