Telangana High Court
WP/26714/2006 of Sadhana English medium School Children Parents Vs The District Education officer, Kadapa District , Kadapa on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.26714 of 2006 22-12-2006 Between:- Sadhana English Medium School Children, Parents Association, Badvel, rep., by its President S. Subrahmanyam. Petitioner And The District Educational Officer, Kadapa district, Kadapa and four others. Respondents THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No.26714 of 2006
--22122006
Between:-
Sadhana English Medium School Children,Parents Association, Badvel, rep., by itsPresident S. Subrahmanyam.
Petitioner
And
The District Educational Officer,Kadapa district, Kadapa and four others.
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMW.P.No. 26714 of 2006
Oral order:
The petitioner, in substance, is aggrieved that thefifth respondent-school is not permitting its studentsthrough an existing eastern side gate for ingress andegress of its students. From the pleadings, it wouldappear that the fourth and fifth respondents – schools inBadvel town, Kadapa district -- had litigated in O.S.No.70 of 2005 filed by the fourth respondent-schooland thereat entered into a compromise whereunder thefifth respondent-school management agreed to employthe gate on the western side of its school for ingress andegress to the said school, while the fourth respondentagreed to use the gate on the eastern side.
The petitioner states that the western side entry to the fifth respondent’s school is through a narrower roadand there is also a drainage canal on western side and asa consequence, the students, (whose interests arepropagated by the petitioner), are exposed to unhygienicenvironment. The petitioner contends that the conduct ofthe fifth respondent in entering into a compromise with thefourth respondent, whereby the ingress and egress to thefifth respondent’s school is restricted through the easterngate, is violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution ofIndia.
The above contention is stated to be rejected. Neither the right of the petitioner-association nor of thestudents of the fifth respondent school to move freelyeither on the eastern road or on the western road, relativeto the location of the fifth respondent, is curtailed. What isregulated by the fifth respondent school is the path ofingress and egress to the school only to the eastern sideand such restriction is a consequence of a compromiseentered into between the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Suchconduct per se does not involve any constitutional orfundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(d) ofthe Constitution, as alleged and claimed.
If the petitioner is aggrieved that there is anunhygienic environment on the eastern side, the petitionermay bring it to the notice of the local authority or in case ofa grave unhygienic situation to petition the educational authorities for issuing appropriate directives for shifting ofthe school or even closure of the educational institution ongrounds of public interest and the interests of students. AMandamus directing that the fifth respondent schoolshould provide an entry for ingress and egress to theschool on the eastern side, on the rubric of Article 19 ofthe Constitution of India is misconceived, as is the writpetition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Nocosts.
____________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated:22-12-2006Pvks/*