Skip to content


W.P.A. Soundarapandian High School, Madras Vs. the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) and Appellate Authority, Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A. No. 660 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1986Mad37
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 20 and 21; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 11
AppellantW.P.A. Soundarapandian High School, Madras
RespondentThe Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) and Appellate Authority, Madras and anr
Appellant AdvocateD. Raju, Adv. for ;G.K. Venkataraman, Adv., ;B.K. Ravindran and ;G. Venugopal, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM.A. Sadanand, Govt. Adv. and ;P. Chidambaram, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....the appellant to raise the same question again in this writ petition, since he has an alternative remedy and he has not availed of the same. mere laches in filing the appeal and allowing the limitation to bar such filing of the appeal, cannot also be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction under art. 226 of the constitution. in the circumstances, we dismiss the writ appeal. the second respondent will be entitled to his costs. counsel's fee rs. 500/-.2. it is represented that pending the appeal as a condition for granting an order of stay, this court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of rs. 20,000, of which rs. 10,000 was permitted to be withdrawn by the second respondent. the appellant is permitted to withdraw whatever balance is available on that account.3. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

V. Ramaswami, J.

1. The appellant filed on an earlier occasion W. P. 2539 of 1980 questioning the validity of the very order in D. Dis. No. 91430/67/79 dt. 21-4-1980 of the Joint Director of School Education, which is now impugned in this writ petition. That order is an appealable order and an appeal lies to the Tribunal constituted under Private College Regulations Act. Realising that he has to exhaust that remedy, the learned counsel who appeared in the said writ petition wanted permission to pursue that alternative remedy and wanted to withdraw the writ petition. Such permission was given after recording the statement that an appeal against that order could be pursued. But, however the appellant did not file the appeal and after some time filed W. P. 3908 of 1980 praying for the same relief as in the earlier writ petition. This was on the ground that under S. 44 of the Act, which enabled the appellant to file an appeal, certain conditions precedent relating to deposit will have to be fulfilled in order to maintain the appeal and that since that was considered to be onerous, he could not pursue that remedy. If this was the attitude he wanted to take, he should have taken that point even at the time when he filed the earlier writ petition. When he mentioned that there is an appeal provided to him and he may be permitted to pursue that remedy at the time when the matter came up for hearing on the earlier occasion, he should have known that S. 44 of the Act imposes a condition precedent and that will have to be complied with before he could get an admission of the appeal or get any interim relief pending the appeal. In the circumstances, therefore, the appellant could not be permitted to file a writ petition again asking for the same relief. It may also be considered in the circumstances that the earlier order may operate as res judicata, but it is unnecessary for us to rest our decision on that ground. But suffice it to say that we cannot permit the appellant to raise the same question again in this writ petition, since he has an alternative remedy and he has not availed of the same. Mere laches in filing the appeal and allowing the limitation to bar such filing of the appeal, cannot also be a ground for invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, we dismiss the writ appeal. The second respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.

2. It is represented that pending the appeal as a condition for granting an order of stay, this court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000, of which Rs. 10,000 was permitted to be withdrawn by the second respondent. The appellant is permitted to withdraw whatever balance is available on that account.

3. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //