Dmk ranganathan case against school

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2020
B.Ranganathan,
S/o.Bakthavachalu,
No.37/13, 1st Street,
Jawahar Nagar,
Chennai – 600 082. …Petitioner
-Vs-

1. The Principal Secretary to the Government
School Education Department
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Director of School Education
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.

3. The Chairman,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.

4. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.

5. The Chairman,
TANGEDCO,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.

6. The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
No.18/31, Palliarasan Street,
Aspiran Garden Colony,
Kumaran Nagar,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.

7. The Sub Registrar,
Konnur Sub Registrar Office,
Villivakkam,
Chennai – 600 049.

1st Page/Corrns.:
8. N.P.Viswanathan
The Secretary,
Singaram Pillai Boys’ Higher Secondary School
No.2, MTH Road, Villivakkam
Chennai – 600 049.

9. M.Nirmala Devi,
W/o.K.Mahaveer Chand.
No.9/4, Somasundaram 6th Street,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023.

10. Dr.C.M.K.Reddy,
S/o.Venku Reddy,
No.306, Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 600 010.

11. Dr.J.Joseph Arnold,
S/o.John Rose,
No.159, 7th Cross Street, Drivers Colony,
Venkatesan Nagar,
Pattabiraman,
Chennai – 600 072.

12. R.Dinesh Kumar,
S/o.Rajiv Patel,
No.4 Anjugam Nagar, 7th Street,
Kolathur,
Chennai – 600 099. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

I, B.Ranganathan, son of Bakthavachalu, Hindu, aged about 71 years, residing at No.37/13, 1st Street, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows :

1. I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case out of my personal knowledge and also on the basis of the available records. I have not filed any other case praying for a similar relief what is prayed for in the writ petition.

2nd Page/Corrns.:
2. The petitioner states that he is filing the present Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest, since the action of the 8th Respondent is acting contrary to the welfare of the School as well as the Scheme formulated by the School at the time of granting permission. The petitioner is a Elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Villivakkam Constituency. Even previously, he has been elected to the said post for 5 terms from different Constituencies. This itself shows the welfare that the petitioner has rendered to his elected constituency. The petitioner herein is a law-abiding citizen and he is filing the present writ petition as pro bono public litigation seeking for the relief of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 herein to take action on the basis of his representations dated 27.08.2020 and 07.09.2020.

3. The petitioner herein states that he is filing the present Writ Petition as public interest litigation in compliance with the rules framed by the High Court issued in ROC No.670-A/2010 F-1 & the subsequent amended ROC No.4452-A/2014/F-1 which regulates regulate public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of India. The petitioner herein has no personal interest involved in the subject matter of writ. The petitioner is willing to bear the cost as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court in the event of his personal interest being exposed as public interest. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition out of his own fund, to the best of his knowledge and belief, no writ arising out of the same has been filed anywhere. The PAN number of the petitioner is AAJPR2197l, he is assessable to Income tax. In the present writ petition, he is questioning the authority of the 8th respondent selling substantial portion of the property of the 8th respondent school, in favour of third parties and unduly enriching himself. The same is not permitted under the statue called Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act as well the rules under which the school in state of Tamilnadu are regulated. The immovable properties of the school cannot be disposed of in such a manner, as has been done in the present case.
3rd Page/Corrns.:
4. Before adverting to the main issue, it is just necessary to bring to the knowledge of this Court, the real issues involved in the present litigation. Before the 8th respondent school could be formed, a land was purchased by Singaram Pillai School Society in the year 1959 in Document No.1251 of 1959. The Singaram Pillai School Society is a body registered under the Tamil Nadu Society’s Registration Act, in the year 1959. The said land originally belonged to one Saraswathi Panduragan as she acquired the same by way of an assignment from the then State of Madras. She sold the property to the 7th respondent society only for the noble object of running a school. Having the said object in mind, the 8th respondent school was established in the year 1958.

5. It is respectfully submitted that the said school was subsequently recognized under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, for smooth running of the school, aids were provided by the State by way of grant, so as to meet teachers’ salary and such other connected expenditure. Many famous personalities such as Doctors, Lawyers, IAS officers, Judges of various Courts in Tamil Nadu, are the old students of the 8th respondent school. The 8th respondent school, which is a higher secondary school is imparting education for classes 6 to 12, students hailing from economically middle and lower income families are benefited by the school. Being a Government aided school, the fees charged by the school is very meager and all facilities based on the Government policies such as free bus pass, free text books, uniforms, lap tops, By-cycle were given free of cost to the students studying in the school. Other than the salary payable to the teachers, there is no significant expenditure incurred by the school. Ultimately, the teachers’ salaries are paid by way of Government grants.

4th Page/Corrns.:

Hence, it is not necessary for the 8th respondent to sell the school properties to any third party. As of now, there are three thousand students studying in the school and for them there are around 60 teachers employed in the said school.

6. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner came to know through paper publication and his friends that the M.P.Viswanathan, the 8th respondent herein, has sold substantiated portions of immovable properties of the school to Respondents 9 to 12 and the purchasers of the properties have illegally trying to put up permanent constructions and running various activities. By going through the recital of the sale deed, it shows that the 8th respondent has sold the property and utilizing the money for the purpose of new construction for the school. In reality, there is no new building every attempted to be constructed by the 8th respondent. The petitioner obtained certified copies of the four sale deeds under which the school properties were sold by the 8th respondent to various third parties. In the recitals of the Sale Deed, the 8th Respondent has made a declaration that he has lost the original sale deed namely Document No.1251 of 1959 during heavy rains that witnessed the city in November 2015. But a contradictory statement was made by the 8th respondent at the time of execution of the sale deed that he has lost his original sale deed while travelling in the motor cycle. On that basis, a complaint dated 02.03.2015, was made by the 8th Respondent to the Inspector of Police, ICF Police Station. The Inspector of Police within ten days, i.e., on 13.03.2015 itself seems to have issued missing Certificate to the 8th Respondent. The missing Certificate was issued by the Inspector of Police, ICF Police Station only on the ground that the said document was lost, while the 8th respondent was travelling in the motor cycle. However, the recital of the document shows that the said Original

5th Page/Corrns.:
document has been lost in the rain, during November 2015. The said contrary statement of the 8th Respondent itself clearly shows that he has played a grave fraud and illegally sold the properties of the School contrary to the various Statutory Provisions under which a recognition was granted to the Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School.

7. It is respectfully submitted that if any private school has to be established, the same should be recognised by the Statutory Body created under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and the Rules contemplated thereon. At the time of applying for recognition for the establishment of the School, the same should be made under a specific form, which should disclose the details of the Movable and Immovable property, which should be utilized for the very purpose of the School. The Immovable Property shown at the time of Recognition, becomes the property of the School. The School Authority namely the Secretary or the Correspondent of the School considered to be a Custodian, who only takes care of the property of the School. Any alteration or modification in the Original Scheme granted at the time of recognition should be approved by the Director of the School Education. Without the consent of the Recognizing Body, the property of the School cannot be altered or disposed off. In the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Rules, especially Rule 24 & 31 plays a Vital Part in such a situation. Under Rule 24 which safeguards the Funds of the Private School and Rule 31 which safeguards the Interest of the Immovable Properties of the School. Without the consent and prior permission of the Director of the School Education, either the funds or the Immovable properties of the Private School cannot be transferred to any 3rd party either by way of a Sale or Mortgage etc. Any such transfer made by the School Authority is null and void and such transfers will not affect the rights of the School. Any such Sale

6th Page/Corrns.:
made is contrary to Rule 24 and 31 and the same stands automatically cancelled any third party right is created it is contrary to Rule 24 and 31. After the formation of the school, the immovable properties wherein the school building is constructed, becomes the properties of the school. Only on such condition, approval is granted by the statutory authorities.

8. It is respectfully submitted that on the scrutiny of the Revenue Record, the S.Nos.249/3A1 (Part) and 249/4 has been shown as Government Natham Poramboke and belongs to Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School. The extract from the Town Survey Register also reflect the above said undisputed fact. Hence, the 8th Respondent does not have any locus or right to dispose of the School Property. The 8th Respondent has not only committed a fraud but also suppressed these facts and transferred the property by executing a Sale Deed in favour of the Respondents 9 to 11. This is the fittest case, where a Criminal prosecution can be initiated against the 8th Respondent for illegally selling the properties of the Government Aided School to and in favour of the Respondents 8 to 11.

9. It is respectfully submitted that some of the Old Students namely, S.Sivasubramani and one Mr.Thulasi Doss has continuously questioning the illegalities of the 8th Respondent by sending representation to various respondents namely the Respondents 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against the 8th Respondent from dealing with the immovable properties of the School. In fact, Mr.Sivasubramani a practicing lawyer before this Hon’ble Court, on 28.08.2020, submitted an application to 3rd Respondent, asking for a particulars of planning permission, granted to Respondents 9 to 11. The 3rd Respondent seems to have misunderstood the fact and deliberately given a false information, saying the planning permission was

7th Page/Corrns.:
given to Singaram Pillai Matriculation Higher Secondary School, which is totally a different entity. The Singaram Pillai Matriculation Higher Secondary School is different from the Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School. Even though, both the Schools are functioning in Villivakkam, the present issue is covered and circumvent only with the properties of Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School. Hence, the communication of the 3rd respondent is totally non-est in the eye of law and the same is issued only to create confusion, forgetting the fact that the 3rd respondent is deliberately done this only with collusion with the respondents 8 to 11. In fact, a separate Writ Petition was filed by S.Sivasubramani by W.P.No.13472 of 2020, which is pending.

10. It is respectfully submitted that for the queries raised by S.Sivasubramani, a detailed reply was issued on behalf of Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, vide the Communication dated 25.09.2020. In the said Communication, it is clear that the Corporation seems to have given permission for demolition of the said Building. The petitioner lost to understand, how the Corporation can grant a Demolition Permission for the School Building that too illegally sold for a third parties. The Corporation ought not to have granted such a permission, since the entire property belongs to the School. The same can be utilized only for the purpose of Welfare of the School. The said communication also very clear that no approval was given for construction of any new building. Hence, it is crystal clear that the so-called construction put up by the Respondents 9 to 11 is not only illegal but also unauthorized. Any person who is carrying on any unauthorized construction does not have any equity before Law and should be restrained for putting up the same.

8th Page/Corrns.:

11. It is respectfully submitted that at the time of purchase of the school property way back in 1959, it was clearly mentioned in the sale deed that the property has been purchased by Singaram Pillai School Society, Konnur, Villvakkam, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Consequently, it has become the property of the said Trust, which cannot be easily disposed of at the whims and fancies of the 7th respondent. The sale made by the 8th respondent is totally contrary to the object made in the Trust Act as well as to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.

12. It is respectfully submitted that the photographs filed in the typed set of papers could show how the school properties were illegally conveyed to the parties and the demolition carried out for new constructions. The petitioner is given to understand that one S.B.Harikrishnan, another old student of the 8th respondent school, seems to have filed a Writ Petition in WP No.14214 of 2019 questioning the illegalities committed by the 8th respondent. The result of the said writ petition is yet to be known to the petitioner. However, it is believed that the said Harikrishnan could have fallen prey to the honey trap laid by the 8th respondent and the subsequent purchasers. Many other old students also have objected to illegalities of the 8th respondent and sent representations to the authorities concerned, but ended in futile exercise. As against the attitude of the 8th respondent, having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, the petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. The petitioner herein undeterred by the actions of the 8th respondent and his allies, is filing the present writ petition keeping in mind the interest of the students uppermost in his mind. Unless the illegalities of the 8th respondent are repaired and sold properties are restored to the 8th respondent school, grave prejudice will be caused to the students at large and the object of formation of the school will be defeated.
9th Page/Corrns.:
14. Hence I am left with no other alternative, efficacious and effective remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an Order of Interim Injunction, restraining the 8th Respondent from alienating or disposing off the properties of the 8th Respondent Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School, situated in S.No.294/3A1B (Part) and 294/4 (Part) in T.S.No.34 in Block No.3 of Villivakkam Village, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.

Therefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an Order of Interim Injunction, restraining the Respondents 8 to 11, not to put up further construction in the property belongs to Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School, Villivakkam, Chennai-600 049, situate in S.No.294/3A1B (Part) and 294/4 (Part) in T.S.No.34 in Block No.3 of Villivakkam Village, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.

Therefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim direction directing the 5th Respondent to disconnect the Electricity Connection of the Illegal and Unauthorized Connection put-up by the Respondents 9 to 11 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.

For all the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction in the form of Writ to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to take

10th Page/Corrns.:
appropriate action against the 8th respondent on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.08.2020 and 07.09.2020 and restore the immovable properties of the Singaram Pillai Boys Higher Secondary School, situate in S.No.294/3A1B (Part) and 294/4 (Part) in T.S.No.34 in Block No.3 of Villivakkam Village, as Originally existed and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai
on this 28th day of October Before Me,
2020 and signed his name in
my presence.
Advocate : Chennai

11th & Last Page/Corrns.:

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com