Madras High Court
S.David Stephen vs The District Registrar on 21 January, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
REV.APLC(MD)NOs.86 and 87 OF 2021
in
W.A(MD)Nos.16 and 17 Of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7659 of 2021
REV.APLC(MD)NO.86 OF 2021
S.David Stephen,
Correspondent,
CMS-Evangelican Suvi David
Memorial Higher Secondary School,
at Karisalpati,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District :Review Petitioner/Appellant
REV.APLC(MD)NO.87 OF 2021
1.S.David Stephen
Correspondent,
CMS-Evangelican Suvi David
Memorial Higher Secondary School,
at Karisalpati,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2.D.Tennis Doss
3.S.Ponselvi
4.P.James Paul
5.P.Jebamani(Watchman)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
6.D.Davidson Raja
7.R.Felsi Rani Latha :Review Petitioners/Appellants
.vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.C.Jebastin : Respondents/Respondents
in both Review Applications
COMMON PRAYER: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule
1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court
to review the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020, dated 1.7.2021.
For Petitioners :Mr.Issac Mohanlal
in both Review Senior Counsel
Applications for M/s.Issac Chambers
For Respondents :Mr.P.Subbaraj
in both Review Special Govt.Pleader
Applications
COMMON ORDER
*************
[Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
These Review Applications have been directed against the
common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A(MD)Nos.16 and 17 of 2020, dated 1.7.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The Review Petitioner had filed W.P(MD)No.13888 of 2019
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the second respondent, dated 30.05.2019 and to quash
the same and to direct the second respondent to administer the day
to day affairs of the school in question.
4.The other Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.15889 of 2019 was
filed by the third respondent seeking for a direction to the second
respondent to disburse the grant-in-aid towards salary to the
teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Petitioner-school.
5.The Writ Appeals proceeded to direct the District
Educational officer,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District to
administer the institution and also to decide the request made by
the appellant for recognising him as a correspondent. According to
the revision Petitioner, there was an election on 9.10.2020 and the
new set of office bearers have been elected. Though the office
bearers are elected afresh, it is stated that the same set of office
bearers were re-elected. However, the procedure warrants for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Form-VII to be registered. In the meanwhile, the erst-while office
bearers term of office expired on 13.10.2020. The District
Educational Officer,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District was
directed to consider and recognize the right of the Writ Petitioner,
meanwhile, the District Educational Officer was directed to
administer the institution. Therefore, what remains to be done is
that the District Educational Officer,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli
District has to consider the request of the revision Petitioner to
decide the request made by the him for recognising him as
correspondent after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to
the third respondent. It is also pertinent to point out that in
O.S.No.86 of 2018, on the file of Ist Additional District Court,
Tirunelveli, I.A.No.20 of 2020 filed for injunction by the plaintiff
restraining the fifth respondent, the District Registrar from
registering Form-VII declaration, under which, the review
Petitioner was elected. The said I.A was dismissed on 8.1.2021. It is
also stated that so far no appeal was preferred by the plaintiff
against the said order.
6.In the light of the above, there is no impediment for the
District Educational Officer,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District to
implement the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, the review Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the order
of the Division Bench of this Court and he can only make a request
to the District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli
District to recognize him as a correspondent and giving an
opportunity of personal hearing to the third respondent. In the light
of the above, we see no error apparent on the face of the records to
interfere with the same and the thus the Review Applications are
liable to be dismissed.
7.Accordingly, the Review Applications stand dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
21.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsn
COMMON ORDER MADE IN
REV.APLC(MD)NOs.86 and 87 OF 2021
in
W.A(MD)Nos.16 and 17 Of 2020
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7659 of 2021
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
