M/S. Genius High School vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4211 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                 WRIT APPEAL No.533 of 2022



JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



        Heard     Mr.       A.M.Rao,           learned             counsel   for   the

appellant; Ms.C.Vani Reddy, learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents No.1 to 4; and Mr. P.Venu

Gopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent

No.5.

2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against

the final order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.28710 of 2021 filed by the

appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. In the related writ petition challenge was made to the

order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Regional Joint

Director of School Education, Hyderabad. By the aforesaid

order, recognition granted to the appellant - Genius High

School, was withdrawn with immediate effect. As a

consequence, District Educational Officer, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, was requested to take necessary action

and to issue instructions to the concerned Mandal

Educational Officer to handover all the records of the

appellant and also to take necessary action to adjust the

children in the nearby schools and to submit compliance

report thereafter.

4. The writ petition was contested by the respondents

by filing counter affidavit.

5. By the order under appeal, the writ petition was

dismissed.

6. From a perusal of the order dated 09.11.2021, it is

seen that according to the Regional Joint Director of School

Education i.e., respondent No.2, as per the report of the

District Educational Officer, management of the appellant

had submitted fake documents of lease deed at the time of

submission of proposal for renewal of recognition for

classes I to X for the period from 2017-18 to 2026-27,

thereby misleading the School Education department by

suppression of facts. In this connection, a show cause

notice dated 31.07.2021 was issued to the appellant to

which the appellant submitted reply. It was noted that the

appellant had submitted lease deed document

No.576/2017, which was executed in the year 2007, an

impossibility. Complainant i.e., respondent No.5 submitted

document No.5655/2014 in which the appellant and

respondent No.5 had agreed to cancel document

No.576/2017. District Educational Officer was requested

to conduct an enquiry and to submit report, pursuant to

which, District Educational Officer submitted the report on

08.11.2021 reporting that appellant had misled the School

Education department by suppression of facts.

7. In view of the above, recognition granted earlier to the

appellant was withdrawn with consequential direction to

the District Educational Officer.

8. Learned Single Judge by detailed analysis noted as

follows:

"i) The above rival submissions and perusal of record would reveal that originally Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy and his first wife Mrs. Sama Sandhya were owners of the subject property. Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy was the correspondent of the said Society. According to the petitioner, it is in existence since 1999. However, it had obtained renewal of recognition on 23.04.2008 for a period of ten (10) years i.e., from 2007-08 to 2016-17 for Classes VI to X. The said Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy and his first wife had executed the above referred registered lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 in favour of the aforesaid society, and the lease is for a period of fifteen (15) years w.e.f. 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2022. Mrs. Sama Sandhya died on 01.04.2014 and, thereafter, the said society represented by its correspondent, Mr. Sama Mohan Reddy had executed a registered surrender of lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014. He had sold the subject property in favour of respondent No.5 herein; his wife and son vide the aforesaid three registered sale deeds who in turn executed the aforesaid three registered sale deeds in favour of the said society. The period of the lease was expired by 31.08.2017 itself. Thereafter, the said lease was not extended. Virtually, as on the date of renewal of recognition obtained vide proceedings dated 23.08.2017, there was no lease in existence, and on the other hand, the aforesaid three

suits were filed seeking ejectment of the aforesaid society from the subject property and execution petitions are pending. The said decrees are ex parte decrees. The petitions filed by the said Society under Order - IX, Rule - 13 of the CPC to set aside the said ex parte decrees are also pending."

9. Finally, learned Single Judge concluded as under:

"9. CONCLUSION:

i) As discussed above, as on the date of obtaining renewal of recognition proceedings, dated 23.08.2017, there was no valid lease in favour of the petitioner herein. The lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 was not in existence in view of surrender of lease by virtue of execution of registered surrender of lease deed bearing document No.5655 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014. Even then, the petitioner herein had submitted the lease deed bearing document No.576 of 2007, dated 16.10.2007 and obtained renewal of recognition proceedings dated 23.08.2017 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. The impugned proceedings were issued by respondent No.2 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner school by following the procedure and giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein by serving a show-cause notice and conducting an inquiry and, therefore, there is no error in it. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned proceedings by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, and the interim order passed by this Court on 12.11.2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 stands vacated by allowing I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2022."

10. Learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents No.1 to 4 has drawn our attention to

G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994

containing the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions

(Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of

Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (briefly,

"the Rules" hereinafter), as adopted and made applicable to

the State of Telangana.

11. Rule 6 of the Rules deals with application for

permission for establishment of new schools or

upgradation of existing schools. As per Rule 6(2)(f) of the

Rules, applicant has to submit the evidence of ownership

of the land and building or lease of land or building as the

case may be.

12. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with recognition. Sub-rule

(6) of Rule 9 of the Rules says that renewal of recognition

shall be guided by the same principles as are applicable to

grant of original recognition.

13. In the instant case, the lease deed in respect of the

land over which the appellant was functioning had expired

on 31.08.2017. As on today, there is no valid lease deed.

On the other hand, what was noticed by the Regional Joint

Director of School Education was that lease document

No.576/2017 was submitted to show existence of lease. As

a matter of fact, it was found that the said document of

2017 was executed allegedly in the year 2007, which is

impossible.

14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we

see no good reason to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

15. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

23.08.2022 vs