Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Management Of St.Mary Fathima, vs The State Of A.P on 21 October, 2024
APHC010575952023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No: 30150/2023
Between:
The Management of St.mary Fathima, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State of A.P. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K N VIJAYA LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
WRIT PETITION No: 34371/2013
Between:
Sri Sangameswara High School, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K N VIJAYA LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION No: 319/2024
Between:
Nava Bharat Aided Em High School ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)
WRIT PETITION No: 16549/2024
Between:
The Management Of Sri Raghavendra Aided Primary ...PETITIONER
School
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K N VIJAYA LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
The Court made the following:
3
COMMON ORDER:
The issue in all the Writ Petitions is for payment of maintenance grant @ 6% to the petitioners-institutions. As such, all the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Averments made in the writ affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions:
The case of the petitioners-institutions is that their institutions are aided by the Government and they are entitled for the maintenance grant to meet the expenditure, like electricity charges, telephone charges, water supply, stationery, salaries of the contingent staff, etc. The Government initially paying maintenance grant @ 10%, however, presently releasing maintenance grant @ 2% and the petitioners- institutions are doing yeomen service to society by catering to the educational needs to the majority of school going children. The releasing of maintenance grant by the Government is not doing any favour to the private management but helping for serving the cause of education which duty is cast upon the Government through directive principles enshrined in the Constitution. Releasing the maintenance grant @ 2% will discourage the management and would not be conducive for the proper administration of the institution and the 4 Government has promulgated Act reducing the maintenance grant to 2% in contravention of the orders of the composite High Court in W.P.No.1159 of 1991 and the High Court has directed the Government to release 6% of the maintenance grant and showing utter disrespect to the orders of the High Court, the Government continued in releasing maintenance grant of 2% and the same was questioned by Sarada Committee Aided Elementary Schools in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 and the common High Court decided the matter on 30.09.2016 and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
"Hence, the Respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner's educational institution, on par with other schools."
3. The said order in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 dated 30.09.2016 was carried by the Government by way of Writ Appeal, vide W.A.No.1296 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on 03.08.2018, observing in the following manner:
"At any rate, we do not see that this is an intra-court appeal which should be entertained by us at the instance of the 5 State Government on the scales of justice. The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-institutions would submit that the said judgment rendered by the common High Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 can only be said to be the judgment in "rem" but not as judgment in "personum" and it is equally apply to all the aided schools and the petitioners-institutions are also entitled to maintenance grant at 6% along with arrears and the issue was already settled by this Court and as well as the common High Court at Hyderabad and it is no more res-integra and even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed against W.A.No.1296 of 2016 and the release of maintenance grant is a policy decision and cannot discriminate the institutions in the State and the Government ought not have issued any proceedings dated 09.10.2023 raising certain hyper technical grounds, which is extracted hereunder:
"a. Audit reports - not submitted.
b. Cadre strength particulars - not submitted c. Roll particulars from 2003-2004 to 2022-23 - not submitted."6
5. And the objections mentioned are not tenable and that could not be a reason for not granting the maintenance grant to the petitioners- institutions as claimed. Therefore, humbly prayed this Court to direct the respondents to release the maintenance grant @ 6% and for other appropriate reliefs.
6. Counter contentions filed by the learned Government Pleader:
Respondent No.5, on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, filed counter and denied all the contentions raised by the writ petitioners and, inter alia, would contend that the writ petitioners have to submit the annual audit report for each financial year and also contended that as per Rule 28 of the Grant-in-aid Code of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Department, the management of the school shall submit financial statement in the prescribed formate to the competent authority not later than 1st May of each year and as per said Rule 28, the private managements have to submit annual administration report by 30th September every year. And in the case on hand, the petitioners have not submitted any annual administration reports, as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 or under the Grant-in-aid Code and the petitioners have taken more than a reasonable time knocking the doors of the Hon'ble High Court for grant of arrears. 7
7. And further contended that after amendment brought to the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grants (Regulation) Act, 1995, vide Act 34 of 2007 dated 19.09.2007, regarding the limitation to claim the arrears of maintenance grant is three years from the date on which it has become due and all such arrear claims shall lapse and the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 is with regard to the payment of maintenance @ 6% only and not for payment of arrears and the judgment relied on by the petitioners is prior to the issuance of amendment of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grants (Regulation) Act, 1995, and as per the amendment, the maintenance grant cannot be allowed beyond the period of three years from the date on which it has become due and all such arrear claims shall be lapsed automatically and they agreed that the Government is bound to pay maintenance @ 6% and relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra1, for the proposition that a person aggrieved must show how he suffered legal injury, and also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State 1 (2013) 4 SCC 465 8 Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society2, for the proposition that the statutory authority cannot be asked to act in contravention of law, and also relied on in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini3, for the proposition that even some ineligible candidates for wrongly treated as eligible, it could not give raise doctrine of equality and the equality doctrine cannot be invoked to perform an illegality and unless and until, the petitioners submit the audit reports on or before 30th September on every financial year and unless and until the said reports were submitted, maintenance grant cannot be released and Rule 28 of the Grant-in-aid Code of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Department.
8. Hence, learned Government Pleader would contend that the writ petitioners herein have not submitted their audit reports, as contemplated under Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 and Rule 28 of Grant-in-aid Code and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as the claim is barred by limitation in view of the amendment to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Eduicational 2 (2013) 5 SCC 427 3 (2007) 5 SCC 519 9 Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
9. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for both sides, it is necessary to extract the aforesaid Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 and Rule 28 of the Grant-in-aid Code of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Department, which read thus:
10. Rule 28 of the Grant-in-aid Code of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Department reads thus:
"28. Financial statement.-- The management of every aided Secondary School shall submit to the Regional Deputy Director through the District Educational Officer not later than 1st May of each year a Financial Statement in the form prescribed in Appendix-(E)."
11. Rule 20 of the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994: Submission of Annual Administration Report by the Educational Agency:
"The Educational agency shall submit the annual administration report in the prescribed proforma to the competent authority for very financial year by the 30th September at the latest. Such report shall be supported by the audited statement of accounts of the school duly audited 10 by Chartered Accountant. Separate accounts shall be maintained for each school. Similarly the educational agency, which is running more than one school, shall also submit such returns within the stipulated time to the competent authority."
12. Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, reads thus:
"3. Powers to fix quantum of Maintenance Grant:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority or the grants-in-aid Code or any rules or instructions issued by the Government from time to time, it shall be competent for the Government to specify by order such percentage of the teaching grant as maintenance grant payable to private educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the Government.
[Provided that no arrear claim for Maintenance Grant shall be allowed beyond a period of three years from the date on which it has become due and all such arrear claims shall lapse.]"
13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, that the audit must be conducted by the state 11 government is fundamentally flawed in light of Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2) dated 01.01.1994. The learned counsel has attempted to mislead the court. In contrast, the learned designated Senior Counsel, Sri N. Subba Rao, has aptly clarified Rule 20 G.O.Ms.No.1, which states that institutions are required to submit their annual administration report to the competent authority, supported by an audit statement. If the authority disagrees with the audit report submitted by the institution, it retains the right to conduct a separate audit.
14. Even Rule 28 of the Grant-in-Aid Code of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Department which reads as follows: The management of every aided Secondary School shall submit to the Regional Deputy Director through the District Educational Officer not later than 1st May of each year a Financial Statement in the Form prescribed.
15. Upon reviewing Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 in conjunction with Rule 28 of the Grant-In-Aid Code, it is imperative that institutions submit a financial statement accompanied by an audit report. If the authority or government disagrees with the submitted audit report, it reserves the right to conduct an independent audit through its designated agency. 12
16. Therefore, the argument presented by the counsel for the institutions is not valid, as Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 and Rule 28 of the Grant-In-Aid Code clearly permit the government to conduct an audit if it disagrees with the audit conducted by the institutions.
17. Upon reviewing the contentions raised by the respondents and considering Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Rule 28 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, and the limitation prescribed under Section 49 of the (Education Act, 1987), it is clear that the petitioners' institutions may claim the maintenance grant only upon fulfilling the specified requirements.
18. Learned counsel Smt. K.N.Vijayalakshmi submits that the limitation prescribed under Proviso to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, is not applicable, as it was incorporated by way of amendment and is only prospective in nature, given that the section does not explicitly state it applies retrospective. She contends that the respondents have paid the maintenance grant at a rate of 2% instead of the stipulated 6%. Therefore, she argues that the limitation under Proviso to Section 49 of the (Education Act) has no application in this case and prays for the writ petition to be allowed. 13
19. The learned counsels have not provided any evidence to support their contention that the authorities paid the maintenance grant at the rate of 2% instead of the stipulated 6%. In the absence of relevant material, this court cannot presume the veracity of this claim. Moreover, the issue of limitation is a disputed question of fact that necessitates evidentiary support; therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate on the matter by collecting evidence. Such facts must be determined by the appropriate authorities.
20. After considering the arguments presented by both the petitioners' counsel and the Government pleader, it is clear from Rule 20 of G.O.Ms.No.1 and Section 28 of the Grant-In-Aid Code that the petitioners' institutions must submit their statements along with the audit report to the authorities annually. Furthermore, according to the proviso appended to Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act 1995, petitioners' institutions are required to claim their maintenance grant within three years from the date it became due, with this limitation having been in effect since 2007. The judgment cited by the petitioners state that the institutions are entitled to a 6% grant, a point not disputed by the respondents. However, the respondents contend that the petitioners 14 must submit their statements and reports annually, and that claims for maintenance grants cannot be accepted beyond the three year period from when they became due; any arrears beyond this timeframe shall lapse. Since the law explicitly states that claims lapse after three years, the petitioners cannot seek to compel the respondents to pay maintenance grants that are contrary to the provisions and regulations of the respective acts and rules.
21. In the case on hand, the proviso is clear and unambiguous, it should be applied according to its plain meaning. The amendment made to Proviso to Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act 1995 in 2007, is prospective, as it does not specify any retrospective effect. Therefore, the limitation prescribed applies only for claiming the maintenance grant after 2007. Institutions are entitled to the maintenance grant upto 2007, even though the amendment is now in force.
22. In relation to maintenance grant claims beyond the year 2007, following the amendment, it is for the respondents to determine whether the petitioning institutions have submitted their statements and audit reports as required under the relevant rules and sections. The amendment to Proviso to Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Private 15 Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, applies to the petitioning institutions; therefore, the petitioners are referred to the respondents' authorities to pursue their claims for the maintenance grant. The respondents are hereby directed to adjudicate the claims for the maintenance grant in accordance with the applicable provisions and rules. It is understood that the concerned authority shall make a decision within three months from the date of application for the maintenance grant filed by the petitioners' institutions. If they meet the legal requirements and the grant was denied, they might have grounds to appeal the decision or seek a remedy.
23. As seen from the prayer in W.P.No.34371 of 2013, the petitioner is claiming maintenance grant for the period 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 and the said Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013. Claim of the petitioners is within the limitation, as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, hence the petitioners are entitled for such relief not beyond the said relief.
24. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of, however no costs.
16
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 21.10.2024 siva 17 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.30150 of 2023, 34371 of 2013, 319 of 2024 and 16549 of 2024 Date: 21.10.2024 siva