Madras High Court
Indian Modern Matriculation ... vs The Director Of Matriculation ... on 29 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.19415 of 2021
and
WMP Nos.20701 and 20705 of 2021
Indian Modern Matriculation School,
Rep. by its Correspondent,
Raghavan G.
S/o.Late Ganesan R.
No.2/483, K.T.Road - D.T.V.Road,
Kasinaickanpatti Village & Post-635 901
Tirupattur Taluk & District
... Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The Director of Matriculation Schools
Directorate of Matriculation Schools
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Directorate of Town
and Country Planning,
CMDA Complex,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. ... Respondents
(R 2 suo-motu impleaded by the
order of this Court dated 29.09.2021)
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings issued by the Respondent in Na.Ka.No.3466/A2/2019 dated
15.07.2021 and to QUASH the same and consequently directing the Respondent to grant
opening permission for 11th and 12th standards Higher Secondary sections and for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
upgradation for Petitioner School as Higher Secondary School based on the proposal
submitted by Chief Educational Officer, Tirupattur in Na.Ka.No.2560/A5/2020 dated
10.12.2020, without insisting DTCP approval, from the academic year 2020-21 and 2021-
22, within a frame frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Government Advocate
for R 1
for R 2 suo motu impleaded
ORDER
The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, CMDA Complex, Koyambedu,
Chennai 600 107, is suo motu added as the second respondent in this writ petition.
2.The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition pertains to the
impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.07.2021 and for a consequential
direction to the respondent to grant upgradation to the petitioner School as Higher
Secondary School based on the proposal submitted by the Chief Educational Officer,
Tirupattur through letter dated 10.12.2020.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the School was established during the
academic year 2002-2003. Initially, the School had LKG to 6th Standard and subsequently
it was upgraded up to 10th Standard and the petitioner School is a Matriculation School
governed under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the provisions of Matriculation Code.
4.The petitioner School thereafter made an application before the first
respondent seeking for upgradation of the School into a Higher Secondary School. The
proposal was rejected by the first respondent by an order dated 01.11.2019. This order
became a subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.33526 of 2019. This writ petition was
disposed of by an order dated 03.12.2019 and the relevant portions in the order are
extracted hereunder:
3.This writ petition has been filed by a Matriculation School
and they are aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 1 st respondent
dated 01.11.2019, by which, the request made by the petitioner for
upgradation of the School to have 11 th Standard and 12th Standard was
rejected primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has not produced
the copy of the concurrence given by the Directorate of Town and Country
Planning to the concerned panchayat, which approved the building plan
submitted by the petitioner-School. The second ground is that in the
construction put up by the petitioner, there are only 18 rooms as against
the minimum requirement of 22 rooms, which includes 15 class rooms and
7 other rooms for laboratories, Principal room, Teachers' room, Library, etc.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
approved plan, 22 rooms are available and he produced a copy of the
original plan. However, on the inspection conducted by the Chief
Educational Officer and the report having been submitted by the Director of
Matriculation Schools would show that there is a deficit.
5.This Court cannot go into the disputed question of fact in a writ
petition. If according to the norms, which have been framed in pursuant to
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, those
norms have to be strictly adhered to by the institution and this Court cannot
issue any direction relaxing the norms in favour of a particular institution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.With regard to the concurrence, which was required to be
obtained from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, those
concurrence will be issued only to the Panchayat, which granted the
building plan approval. Therefore, if a request is made by the petitioner to
the panchayat, the panchayat is bound to get all the concurrence given by
the Directorate of Town and Country Planning. Therefore, in my considered
opinion, the petitioner has to rectify the defects pointed out. The problem
faced by the petitioner is that anticipating approval, they have admitted
nine students in the 11 th Standard. This is improper because, without
approval for upgradation, no students have been admitted. Therefore, the
petitioner has to issue transfer certificates to those students and the
Department has to facilitate and accommodate all those students in nearby
schools.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings
and in this regard she referred to G.O.(Ms) No.145, School Education
(GL1(2)) Department, dated 17.07.2018. However, this Court finds that the
said Government Order will have no application to Matriculation Schools,
since as per the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, the
competent authority is the 1st respondent. Therefore, this contention raised
by the petitioner does not merit acceptance.
8.In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by
directing the petitioner to approach the President, Kasinaickenpatty
Panchayat, Tirupattur (Taluk), Vellore, and request for furnishing a copy of
the concurrence given by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning. If
such a request is made by the petitioner, the Panchayat is directed to give a
copy of the concurrence within a period of one week from the date on
which the request is made. With regard to infrastructure requirement, the
petitioner is directed to construct additional rooms and cure the deficit and
submit a fresh application for upgradation for the academic year 2020-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2021. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
5.Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner School submitted all the
particulars and also constructed the additional rooms and a fresh application was made
seeking for upgradation for the academic year 2020-2021. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirupattur through letter dated 10.12.2020, after considering the materials placed by the
petitioner School forwarded the proposal.
6.Even thereafter, there was no progress and the first respondent was
insisting for production of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning [DTCP] approval.
Therefore, the petitioner once again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.9927 of 2021,
seeking for appropriate directions. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated
18.06.2021 and the directions issued by this Court is extracted hereunder:
"3. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Government
Advocate for the respondent and considering the limit scope of prayer sought for
by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits, directs the
respondent to consider the application for upgradation submitted by the
petitioner school, by taking into account the proposal forwarded by the Chief
Educational Officer, Tirupattur dated 10.12.2020 and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.Pursuant to the above order, the first respondent has proceeded to issue the
impugned proceedings dated 15.07.2021 and the application submitted by the petitioner
was rejected only on the ground that the DTCP approval was not furnished by the petitioner
School. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
8.Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
9.The learned Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent based on the written instructions submitted that the petitioner School is yet to
produce the DTCP approval and therefore the first respondent was not in a position to
consider the application seeking for upgradation of the School. The learned Government
Counsel further submitted that the first respondent made a communication to the
Directorate of Town and Country Planning and had enquired regarding the status of the
application submitted by the petitioner School. The Directorate of Town and the Country
Planning by letter dated 16.04.2021, informed the first respondent that the application
submitted by the School management is under process. The learned Government Counsel
therefore submitted that the application made by the petitioner was considered along with
the proposal forwarded by the CEO, Tirupattur and it was rejected on the ground that the
petitioner did not satisfy the requirement by producing the DTCP approval.
10.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ available on record.
11.The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
earlier orders passed by this Court. In the present case, the School building was
constructed in the year 2009 and approval was granted by the Executive Authority of the
concerned Village Panchayat as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building
Rules, 1997. Similar cases that were dealt with by this Court also relates to those Schools
which were seeking for approval / upgradation and which were not in a position to submit
the DTCP approval. In all those cases, this Court directed the approval to be granted
subject to the production of the DTCP approval. One such case was in W.P.No.12229 of
2019, disposed of by order dated 29.04.2019. The relevant portions in the order are
extracted hereunder:
"7. At this juncture, it is also relevant to advert to the
following directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
in Tamil Nadu Unaided Polytechnic Management Association V. Government
of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2018) 4 CTC 129.
"46. In cases, which may include the petitioners herein, where the
Executive Authority of the Panchayat might not have consulted either the
Joint Director or the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning before
granting permission for construction of public buildings, this Court declares:
(a)In all such cases, the Executive Authority is directed to forward
the papers to the Town Planning Authority, who may now consider them,
and if required visit the premises in question, and offer his advice if the
constructions have complied with all necessary statutory Rules and
Regulations, and the latter shall forward his views or opinions to the
Executive Authority. If opinions offered are positive, in that if the
constructions are found to have complied with the Rules and Regulations
and such other legal requirements, then the Executive Authority shall issue
an order ratifying his earlier order granting his permission. This will apply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
only to those public buildings in the Panchayat area constructed after the
coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 till
today, the date of this Order, and not to any future application for
constructions.
(b) Where any permission has been granted by the Executive
Authority of the Panchayat without consulting the joint or Deputy Director
of Panchayat in terms of Proviso to Rule 25, but no construction has yet
commenced, it shall not be commenced, till opinion of the Town Planning
Authority is obtained. If the opinion is not negative, then the earlier
permission granted shall, subject to other provisions of law, remain in force.
If the opinion of the Town Planning Authority is negative, the Executive
Authority of the Panchayat shall forthwith cancel the permission earlier
granted after following the due process of law.
(c) In cases of partially constructed buildings, no completion
certificate or other amenities be provided unless a favourable opinion is
given by the Town Planning Authority.
(d) In all cases falling under (a) and (c), if the opinion of the Town
Planning Authority is negative, then such authorities as are empowered to
initiate action for illegal constructions shall initiate appropriate actions as
per law. The power to grant sanction for construction by the Panchayat is
no answer to a builder or a developer violating Rules and Regulations
pertaining to construction activities."
8. Though the judgment of the Division Bench was passed on
06.07.2018, the G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 14.06.2018 issued by the Government
was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. However, the Division
Bench in the aforesaid judgment gave certain directions emphasizing that a
procedure has to be adopted while obtaining DTCP approval, hence, the
petitioner has to follow the same. The Division Bench also made it clear
that there should be single window system through which, either past or
future approvals could be done.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the
"Approval Process Handbook 2019-20" of the AICTE is a legal document as
per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and other various
acts, including the University Grants Commission Act. Annexure XVI
provides for answers to frequent queries. 14.4. says "if an Institution
intends to utilise a Building constructed earlier, the Building approvals
obtained from the then authorities shall be produced, else the approval for
the same shall be obtained from the current approving authorities."
10. Going by the above clarification, as issued by the respondents 1
to 3/ AICTE, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the original
approvals granted by the Thethi Village Panchayat before 2011 are
sufficient for the AICTE to consider their application. However, in view of
the subsequent development, namely, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.76 and the
directions issued by the Division Bench, as stated supra, the petitioner is
bound to follow the same.
11. Learned counsel for the AICTE also pointed out that the
Handbook is applicable for each of the States all over India and when there
is a specific direction given by this Court, particularly, for the State of Tamil
Nadu, even the AICTE is bound to follow the said procedure and
consequently, without any doubt, the petitioner is also bound to satisfy the
authorities by producing the DTCP approval.
12. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment has given certain
directions, since time-frame for each of the authorities is not prescribed
therein and the approval of the AICTE is to be granted by 30th April of each
year, the petitioner as well as similarly placed institutions find it difficult to
get the order of approval within time.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the
cut-off date for obtaining the approval of the AICTE is on or before 30th
April of each year, the anxiety of the petitioner is that the approval should
not be rejected for want of certification from the DTCP authorities.
14. In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to
submit the duly self-attested copies of the plan documents to the seventh
respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. On receipt of the same, the seventh respondent is directed to
forward the copies of the papers, either available with them or as submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
by the petitioner, with due endorsement to the concerned DTCP
authorities/sixth respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter.
15. The respondents 5 and 6 thereafter, have to follow the
procedure mandated in paragraph 46 of the judgment of the Division Bench
in Tamil Nadu Unaided Polytechnic Management Association case (cited
supra) and complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of the papers pertaining to the petitioner
institution.
16. However, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
produced the report of the SAC dated 22.04.2019, from which, it is seen
that the approval is not granted for want of DTCP approval and also NOC
from the State Government. The rejection order is not yet communicated to
the petitioner, as informed by the learned counsel.
17. Since the application submitted by the petitioner trust for merger
is considered by the respondents 1 to 3/AICTE and certain requirements
were pointed out, the said authorities are directed to reconsider the
application of the petitioner trust as sought in their application, forthwith
and pass appropriate orders on or before 30.04.2019, without reference to
DTCP approval, if otherwise all the other norms and conditions are complied
with. In the event of the AICTE acceding to the request of the petitioner
trust, it is open to the AICTE to indicate in the said order that the same
would be subject to the production of the approval of the DTCP,
immediately upon receipt of the same from the DTCP authorities, as
directed above.
12.It is clear from the above order that this Court took into consideration the
judgement of the Division Bench and this Court directed the authorities to consider the
application without reference to the DTCP approval and directed the approval to be granted
if all the other conditions are satisfied subject to the production of the DTCP approval. In
the considered view of this Court, a similar direction can be issued in the present case also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
This is in view of the fact that the DTCP approval is pending before the Directorate of Town
and Country Planning and this was made clear by the concerned authority through letter
dated 22.04.2021, when a clarification was sought for by the first respondent.
13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of the first
respondent dated 15.07.2021, is quashed. The matter is again remanded back to the file of
the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application
submitted by the petitioner for upgradation of the School into a Higher Secondary School
without reference to the DTCP approval. If the petitioner has satisfied all the other
requirements, the approval shall be granted subject to the production of the DTCP approval.
There shall be a further direction to the second respondent to process the application
submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. This order thereafter shall be forwarded before
the first respondent and the first respondent shall pass final orders within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
14.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.09.2021.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The Director of Matriculation Schools
Directorate of Matriculation Schools
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Directorate of Town
and Country Planning,
CMDA Complex,
Koyambedu,
Chennai 600 107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
W.P.No.19415 of 2021
29.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
