Ramesh Choudhary vs. Satavahana Co. Education Academy

ITEM NO.14

COURT NO.5 $\mathcal{L}$

SECTION XII-A

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16149/2024

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 02-07-2024 in WA No. 790/2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad)

RAMESH CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SATAVAHANA CO. EDUCATION ACADEMY & ORS. Respondent $(s)$

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.)

Date: 30-07-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. L.Narasimha Reddv, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Parnam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Tarun Chauhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Heard Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The counsel would submit that the petitioners are the parents $2.$ of the students of class IX and X in the Sathavahana High School, Nagar, K.P.H.B. Colony, Medchal, Malkaigiri HMT Sathavahana District. While the lease on the land on which the school building Tally signed by the Division Bench dismissed and the Division Bench dismissed 16.11.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.11.4.1 education was totally overlooked by the High Court.

3. The counsel would submit that proper arrangement for either enabling the students to complete their school education until the board examination should have been made or the District Education Officer, Malkajgiri District could have been asked to distribute the students to nearby schools having recognition.

4. The senior counsel refers to Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) - Rules, 1993 to say that the Court should have considered the interest of the students under Rule 10(16) which requires permission of the competent authority for closure of a class in a school in the middle of the academic year but instead the Court has erred in applying the provisions of Rule 6(2)(F), which speaks of ownership/lease over the land of the school building for according permission for opening the school. In the meantime, the status quo insofar as the education of the students of class IX and X of the school, be maintained.

5. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

(GEETA JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR