Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Raveendra E.M. School vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION No.24280 of 2022
Between:
1. Raveendra E.M. School Rep by
its Correspondent Sri Chalamcharla
Ratnaji, Shiridi Nagar, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
2. Sreevidya, E.M. School Rep by its
Correspondent Smt Tiragati
Veeraveni D.No.5-13/2, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
3. S.S.S. E.M School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Pyla Rana Prathap
Singh Thota Veedhi, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
4. Yaleswaram E.M. School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Dasari Veera
Venkata Satyanarayana,
Lingamparthi Road, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
5. Naren E.M.School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Dasari Durga
Srinivasa Rao, Shiridi Nagar,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
6. Navajyothi E.M. School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Sunkara Rambabu
Lakkavaram Colony, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
7. Gowthami E.M. School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Vadapalli Sai Babu
Narsipatnam Road, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
8. Vivekananda E.M. School, Rep
by its Correspondent Sri Aithabattula
2
Prasadarao Peddaveedhi,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
9. Geetam E.M.School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Lanka Lakshmana
Kumar Dibbalapalem, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
.....Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
Special Chief Secretary to Government
School Education Department, 4th Block,
1st Floor, Tullur, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner of School Education
Government Of Andhra Pradesh, B-Block,
4th Floor, Sri Anjaneya Towers,
NTTPS Road, Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada-521456.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Main Road, Kakinada, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Mandal Educational Officer,
Yelleswaram Mandal, East Godavari
District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. Sri Chaitanya English Medium
High School, Lingamparthi Road,
Yelleswaram, East Godavari
District Rep by its Correspondent.
.....Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 15.10.2024.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments ? Yes/No
2. Whether copies of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No
3
________________________________
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
+ WRIT PETITION No. 24280 of 2022
% 15.10.2024
Between:
# 1. Raveendra E.M. School Rep
by its Correspondent Sri
Chalamcharla Ratnaji, Shiridi Nagar,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
2. Sreevidya, E.M. School Rep by its
Correspondent Smt Tiragati
Veeraveni D.No.5-13/2,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
3. S.S.S. E.M School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Pyla Rana
Prathap Singh Thota Veedhi,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
4. Yaleswaram E.M. School, Rep by
its Correspondent Sri Dasari
Veera Venkata Satyanarayana,
Lingamparthi Road, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
5. Naren E.M.School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Dasari Durga
Srinivasa Rao, Shiridi Nagar,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
6. Navajyothi E.M. School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Sunkara
Rambabu Lakkavaram Colony,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
7. Gowthami E.M. School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Vadapalli Sai
4
Babu Narsipatnam Road,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
8. Vivekananda E.M. School, Rep
by its Correspondent Sri
Aithabattula Prasadarao
Peddaveedhi, Yeleswaram,
Yeleswaram Mandal.
9. Geetam E.M.School, Rep by its
Correspondent Sri Lanka
Lakshmana Kumar Dibbalapalem,
Yeleswaram, Yeleswaram Mandal.
....Petitioners
Versus
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its
Special Chief Secretary to Government
School Education Department, 4th Block,
1st Floor, Tullur, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner of School Education
Government Of Andhra Pradesh, B-Block,
4th Floor, Sri Anjaneya Towers,
NTTPS Road, Ibrahimpatnam,
Vijayawada-521456.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Main Road, Kakinada, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Mandal Educational Officer,
Yelleswaram Mandal, East Godavari
District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. Sri Chaitanya English Medium
High School, Lingamparthi Road,
Yelleswaram, East Godavari
District Rep by its Correspondent.
.....Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Mathukumilli Sri Vijay
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju, Ld.
Government Pleader for School
5
Education and Sri
Venkateswara Rao Gudapati,
Learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Kilaru
Nithin Krishna, Learned Counsel
for the Respondent No.5.
< Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
i. (1997) SCC 148;
ii. 1971 (2) SCC 163;
iii. AIR 1964 SC 685;
iv. (2020) SCC online ALL 1562 : (2021) 144 ALR 603;
v. (1976) 1 SCC 671;
vi. (2012) 4 SCC 407.
6
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 24280 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned Counsel for the
Writ Petitioners; Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader
for School Education; Sri B. Satyendra Mani Kumar, Assistant
Government Pleader for School Education for the Official
Respondents and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Kilaru Nithin Krishna,
learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5.
2. Prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under:
" ....to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of
Writ of declaring the action of the official
Respondents much less the action of the Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 in allowing the 5th respondent School to
run the classes for the academic year 2022-23
instead of initiating departmental and criminal
proceedings against it, on extraneous consideration
as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,
19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
in contravention of Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh
Education Act and the Rules framed there under,
Right to Education Act and against the principles of
natural justice besides being unwarranted and
consequently to direct the Respondent authorities to
initiate action against the 5th Respondent
Management as contemplated under the provisions
of A.P Education Act, 1982 and issue such other writ
or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of case"
3. The present Writ Petition is filed by about nine schools
against grant of permission to the 5th Respondent Institution in
running classes from Ist to VIIth standard for the academic year
2022-2023.
4. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the Official
Respondents namely Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have granted
permission in favour of Respondent No.5 in violation of Sub-rule
(1) of Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions
(Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of
Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (in short
Rules, 1993). These Rules were issued under G.O.Ms.No.1,
Education dated 01.01.1994.
5. Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioners has contended, by drawing the attention of this Court
to the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Rules, 1993, that by 30th October
of the preceding academic year, fee of Rs.10,000/- shall be
remitted for seeking permission for the following academic year.
For example, if a Society is seeking permission for establishment
of school for the academic year 2022-2023, fee shall be paid and
Application be submitted on or before 30th November of the
preceding year i.e., on or before 30.11.2021. Learned Counsel
submitted that in the case of grant of permission to the
Respondent No.5, the Application was made on 08.07.2022 and
the permission was granted on 14.07.2022. He further submits
that the Official Respondents have shown undue favour on the
Respondent No.5 by giving complete go by to the Rules set out
under the then 1993 Rules. It is also submitted that Section 20 of
the A.P Education Act has also been given a go-by by the Official
Respondents in grant of permission to the Respondent No.5.
Version of the Official Respondents:
6. Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for
School Education for the Official Respondents has drawn the
attention of this Court to Para No.8 of the Counter Affidavit filed
on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Para No.8 is beneficially
extracted hereunder:
"8.Further it is submitted that the Rule 6 of
GO.Ms.No.1 Edn., dated 01.01.1994
"The application seeking permission for
establishment of a new school or up-gradation of the
existing school shall be submitted to the competent
authority on or before the 31st October of the
preceding academic year, in triplicate, in form-I".
In the present case, the Correspondent of the 5th
respondent institution has paid required amount of
Rs.20,000/- towards the application fee for
establishment of new school before 31st October of
the preceding academic year i.e., on 25.10.2019 and
not deviated the rule mentioned above."
7. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader for
School Education for the Official Respondents, by placing
reliance on Para No.7 of the Counter Affidavit, that basing on the
Verification Report of the Mandal Education Officer, Yeleswaram
to the effect that there is no Upper Primary School existing within
the radius of 2.00 KMs and having only one Primary School
namely MPPS School within the radius of 1.00 KM to the
proposed 5th Respondent Institution, the Official Respondents
have deemed it necessary to accord permission to the
Respondent No.5. He has further drawn the attention of this
Court to various Proceedings which includes a Challan for
Rs.20,000/- paid by the Respondent No.5 on 25.10.2019 to
submit that the proposal along with the required Application for
starting classes from Ist to Xth has originated in the month of April,
2019 and in consequence of the same, an amount of Rs.20,000/-
was paid on 25.10.2019 along with the Application. He has
further submitted that pandemic broke-out and National Lock-
Down was imposed from the second week of March, 2020. In this
view of the matter, proposal of the 5th Respondent was kept in
abeyance.
Version of Unofficial Respondent No.5:
8. Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Kilaru Nithin Krishna, learned Counsel for
the Respondent No.5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the
Proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of School Education,
Kakinada bearing Rc.No.1504/A3/2019 dated 05.11.2019 and
the consequential letter of the Secretary & Correspondent of
Respondent No.5 to the District Educational Officer, Kakinada
dated 27.10.2021. The contents of the said Proceedings dated
05.11.2019 addressed by the Regional Joint Director of School
Education, Kakinada to the Deputy Educational Officer,
Pithapuram would indicate that the case of Respondent No.5
relating to the proposals for opening of Sri Chaitnaya School,
Yeleswaram from Ist Standard to Xth Standard were already in
progress by November, 2019. It is further submitted that the
Secretary and Correspondent of Respondent No.5 had paid the
Challan for a sum of Rs.20,000/- way back on 25.10.2019, but
due to pandemic conditions i.e., Covid-19, the management of
the School could not proceed for the Academic Year 2020-2021.
The Secretary and Correspondent requested the District
Educational Officer to permit them for opening the School and for
commencing classes from Ist to VIIth standard for the Academic
Year 2020-2021.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 has also
drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter-
Affidavit, wherein it has been categorically contended that the
petitioners herein have no locus standi and that the present Writ
Petition has been filed by about 9 Schools only with an intent to
create monopoly in Yelleswaram. He would, therefore, submit that
the Writ Petition is not only frivolous, but also mala fide. It is also
stated that the Rules and Norms as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1,
Education dated 01.01.1994, have been strictly complied with.
Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 has further
submitted in paragraph no.11 of the Counter-Affidavit dated
09.12.2022 that about 407 students have taken admission for
classes between Ist to VIIth standards and that the School has
been running since the academic year 2022-2023.
10. He has also placed reliance on the following judgements:-
i) In D.Nagaraj and Others vs. State of Karnataka and
Others : [(1997) SCC 148], on the proposition that the existence
of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in the above case as under:-
"7. The sole question that requires to be determined
in these appeals is whether the appellants could
maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. It is well settled
that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms
does not describe the classes of persons entitled to
apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit
for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the
High Court under the said Article. It is also well
established that a person who is not aggrieved by the
discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ
petition. The constitutional validity of the Abolition Act
abolishing all hereditary village offices including the
office of the Shambogue or Village Accountant having
been upheld by this Court in B. R. Shankaranarayana
v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in
the matter of appointment of Village Accountants
having been given by Rule 4 of the 1970 Rules to all
persons belonging to the category and class of the
appellants who had served as Village Officers, the
appellants who did not apply for appointment as
Village Accountants in response to the aforesaid
notification issued by the Recruitment Committee and
did not possess the prescribed qualification, could not
complain of the un- constitutionality of the 1970 Rules
or of the infringement of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious
distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a
class of persons arbitrarily selected from out of a
larger group who are similarly circumstanced but do
not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor
prevent the Government from laying down general
educational qualifications for the post in question. The
High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the
appellants have no right to maintain the aforesaid writ
petitions. The appeals accordingly fail and are
dismissed but without any order as to costs."
ii) Further reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the
Apex Court in Jonnale Narasimharao & Company and Others
etc. vs. State of A.P. and others : [1971 (2) SCC 163], on the
proposition that the Writ Petitioner has no locus standi, as he has
failed to show that he has suffered any loss or any disadvantage
that would entitle him to seek a remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"10. Shri Gupte on behalf of the appellants was
unable to tell us that there were among the appellants
any principals who had a direct interest in challenging
the validity of the provisions on the ground of
discrimination. Shri Motilal Sitalvad on behalf of the
appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 2126 to 2128 of 1970
strenuously contended that the appellants have an
interest and can maintain the writ petitions because
they were dealers within the meaning of Section 2(e)
and are persons who are aggrieved because of the
assessment made or likely to be made and tax
recovered from them. He has further contended that
this Court has in several cases held that even a notice
issued to any person under the provisions of an
impugned Act which is likely to cause prejudice will
entitle him to challenge the constitutional validity of
the law under which the notice is given. If so, where
an assessment has been made the assessee has a
right to challenge the provisions of the Amendment
Act under which the levy and collection of tax have
been given retrospective validity. Apart from the
question that this argument does not take into
account the distinction between an attack under
Article 14 and an attack under Article 19 it overlooks
the fact that what is sought to be recovered from the
appellant is in respect of a tax collected on the past
dealings and not with respect to the future
transactions. We had pointed out that tax had already
been collected, no doubt at first illegally, but due to
the Amendment Act that collection has become legal
and as a dealer he is liable to pay that amount to the
State in respect of the assessments made. As there is
nothing to show that what is sought to be recovered
from the dealer is more than what he has collected,
he has not suffered any loss nor any disadvantage
which we would entitle him to seek a remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Shri P.
Ramchandrarao in Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 1970 had
nothing new to add to the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the appellants. On this short
ground alone we dismiss all the appeals except Civil
Appeal No. 33 of 1971 but in the circumstances
without costs."
iii) Further reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the
Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev : [AIR
1964 SC 685] on the proposition that before a Writ or an
appropriate order can be issued in favour of the party, it must be
established that the party has a right and the said right is legally
invaded or threatened. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:-
"8. On the merits, the position is absolutely clear.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction
of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide.
Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court
under the said article even for purposes other than
the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that
sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to
cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights
alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding
words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ
or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a
party, it must be established that the party has a right
and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened.
The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a
petition under Article 226. The narrow question which
falls for our decision in the present appeals is whether
the respondents can be said to have proved any legal
right in respect of the properties of which they
apprehended they would be dispossessed by the
appellant."
iv) Further reliance has been placed on a Judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Prince filling station vs. Union of
India (Division Bench) : [(2020) SCC online ALL 1562: (2021)
144 ALR 603]. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 therein would indicate
that the said case has been decided on the Principle of Damnum
sine Injuria, which is usefully extracted as under:-
"5. The question as to whether a competitor in
business can seek to prevent a rival party from
exercising its right to carry on business came up for
consideration in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. N.T.
Gowda². It was a case of a rice mill seeking to oppose
the setting up of another rice mill in its vicinity on the
ground that its business was likely to be adversely
affected, and in that context it was held that a
competitor in business cannot seek to prevent a rival
from exercising its right to carry on business. The
observations made in the judgment in this regard are
as follows:-
"8. The Parliament has by the Rice Milling
Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, prescribed
limitations that an existing rice mill shall carry
on business only after obtaining a licence and
if the rice mill is to be shifted from its existing
location, previous permission of the Central
Government shall be obtained. Permission for
shifting their rice mill was obtained by the
appellants from the Director of Food and Civil
Supplies. The appellants had not started rice
milling operations before the sanction of the
Director of Food and Civil Supplies was
obtained. Even if it be assumed that the
previous sanction has to be obtained from the
authorities before the machinery is moved
from its existing site, we fail to appreciate what
grievance the respondents may raise against
the grant of permission by the authority
permitting the installation of machinery on a
new site. The right to carry on business being
a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution, its exercise is subject only to
the restrictions imposed by law in the interests
of the general public under Article 19(6)(i).
9. Section 8(3) (c) is merely regulatory, if it is
not complied with the appellants may probably
be exposed to a penalty, but a competitor in
the business cannot seek to prevent the
appellants from exercising their right to carry
on business, because of the default, nor can
the rice mill of the appellants be regarded as a
new rice mill. Competition in the trade or
business may be subject to such restrictions
as are permissible and are imposed by the
State by a law enacted in the interests of the
general public under Article 19(6) but a person
cannot claim independently of such restriction
that another person shall not carry on
business or trade so as to affect his trade or
business adversely. The appellants complied
with the statutory requirements for carrying on
rice milling operations in the building on the
new site. Even assuming that no previous
permission was obtained, the respondents
would have no locus standi for challenging the
grant of the permission, because no right
vested in the respondents was infringed."
6. The requirement of a person being "an aggrieved
person" in order to maintain a writ of certiorari fell for
consideration in Jas Bhai Moti Bhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar, and after discussing various authorities, it was
held that in order to have the locus standi to invoke
certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioner should be "an
aggrieved person", and if he does not fulfil that
character, the Court will, in its discretion, deny him
this extraordinary remedy. The stand taken by the
appellant therein that the setting up of a rival cinema
house in the town would adversely affect his
commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss
of business from competition was held to be not
affecting his legally protected interest so as to give
him justiciable claim and it was held that issuance of a
writ of certiorari at his instance would eliminate
healthy competition in business."
11. The Official Respondents have also filed Counter-Affidavit,
wherein they have also placed the Challan receipt dated
25.10.2015 on record indicating that the Writ Petitioner has
already paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- way back on 25.10.2019. Sri
L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned Government Pleader for School
Education, has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
material documents filed along with the Counter-Affidavit,
particularly the proceedings of the Mandal Education Officer,
recommending the grant of permission for opening the School for
the Academic year 2022-2023, after being satisfied during his
personal visit to the premises of the School and after verifying the
credentials produced by the Management. He has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the permission granted to Respondent
No.5 by the District Educational Officer vide order dated
13.07.2022. Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, Learned Government Pleader for
School Education, has therefore submitted that the official
respondents have not violated any of the Rules.
DISCUSSION:-
12. Respondent No.5 has commenced the proceedings for
starting of a school in October, 2019. Respondent No.5 has
remitted the required fee of Rs.20,000/- way back on 25.10.2019
(material document). Thereafter, COVID-19 pandemic has broken
out from 2020 onwards and the nation was subject to complete
lockdown from March, 2020. After the pandemic situation has
eased-out, Respondent No.5/Management has again addressed
a letter to the District Educational Officer on 27.10.2021 to grant
permission for commencement of classes for the Academic Year,
2020-2021 onwards from Ist standard to VIIth standard. The
Mandal Educational Officer, personally inspected the premises
and submitted a report on 12.07.2022. By placing a reliance on
the report submitted by the Mandal Educational Officer, the
District Educational Officer has accorded permission for starting
the Educational Institution (Respondent No.5) with classes Ist to
VIIth during the year 2022 to 2023. It is also mentioned in the
Counter Affidavit that there is no good school within the radius of
2 KM from the School of Respondent No.5.
13. In view of the fact that Respondent No.5 has paid the
challan for a sum of Rs.20,000/- way back on 25.10.2019, it
cannot be said that Respondent No.5 has made an application
and paid the necessary fee after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, it appears that the Writ Petitioners have misconceived
the very factual aspects.
14. This Court has also tumbled upon some Judgements of
relevance, which are as under:-
i) In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and Others [(1976) 1 SCC 671] the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"47. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that
the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will
adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest,
causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from
competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the
eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a
legal right or a legally protected interest, the business
competition causing it being a lawful activity.
Juridically, harm of this description is called damnum
sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true
sense of an act contrary to law. 37 The reason why
the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of
this description on another, without holding him
accountable for it, is that such harm done to an
individual is a gain to society at large.
48. In the light of the above discussion, it is
demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been
denied or deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In
fact, the impugned order does not operate as a
decision against him, much less does it wrongfully
affect his title to something. He has not been sub-
jected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal
grievance. He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim
to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved'
and has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the
no-objection certificate.
51. The instant case falls well-nigh within the ratio of
this Court's decision in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v.
N. T. Gowda ((1970) 3 SCR 846 : (1970) 1 SCC 575),
wherein it was held that a ricemill owner has no locus
standi to challenge under Article 226, the setting up of
a new ricemill by another even if such setting up be in
contravention of Section 8(3) (c) of the Rice Milling
Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 - because no right
vested in such an applicant is infringed."
ii) In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad
and Others [(2012) 4 SCC 407], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as follows:-
"58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President
was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead
evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status
of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be
the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of
entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a
person who suffers from legal injury can only
challenge the act or omission. There may be some
harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of
the law because it may not result in injury to a legal
right or legally protected interest of the complainant
but juridically harm of this description is called
damnum sine injuria.
59. The complainant has to establish that he has
been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has
sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In
case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to
hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A
fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient
to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual.
There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can
be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas
reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons."
Both the above judgments are decided on the basis of the
Doctrine of damnum sine injuria.
15. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there
is no legal infringement of any statutory or constitutional right of
any of the Petitioners in granting permission to Respondent No.5
to start the School with classes from Ist to VIIth standard inasmuch
as the fee was paid way back on 25.10.2019, of a sum of
Rs.20,000/-. The delay that is caused during the pandemic
situation cannot be attributed to Respondent No.5, as the same
was not within the control of Respondent No.5. The diligence on
the part of Respondent No.5 in addressing a letter after the
pandemic situation has eased-out i.e., on 27.10.2021, would
indicate that Respondent No.5 was diligent in once again
approaching the authorities after the pandemic situation has
eased-out. This Court is in complete agreement with the legal
contentions raised by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.5
in so far as the locus standi is concerned. This Court is of the
opinion that no legal right of any of the Writ Petitioners have been
infringed by either the official Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein or by
the unofficial Respondent No.5 herein. It is also noticed that there
is no other better institution within the radius of 2 KM from the
School (Respondent No.5).
16. At this stage, this Court would take note of the contentions
raised by Respondent No.5 in Para No.6 of the Counter-Affidavit
dated 09.12.2022, which was filed on 12.12.2022, to the effect
that the Writ Petitioners have no locus standi and that the Writ
Petition has been filed by some of the Schools in the locality with
an intent to create monopoly in the area. Therefore, the Writ
Petition is not only devoid of merit but is also frivolous.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court would hold
that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, as the Writ Petitioners
have failed to establish any cause of action. It is also held that the
Writ Petitioners have no locus standi in filing the present Writ
Petition, inasmuch as the legally recognized right has not been
infringed.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms
of this Order.
___________________________
(G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Dt: 15.10.2024
DNV/JKS/VNS
Note: L.R. Copy marked.
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 24280 OF 2022
.10.2024
DNV/JKS
