- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the A. P. High court dated 11/7/1996, dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants and confirming the orders and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17419 of 1995 as modified in Review Petition No. 15976 of 1996.
(2.) Admittedly, in the disputed premises in the city of Hyderabad, a school was running for the last so many years with the name "republic High School". The appellants purchased the said building under two registered sale deeds dated 25/2/1995 and 2/3/1995. Shortly after the aforesaid purchase, the correspondent of the School, on whom the management of the School vests under the provisions of the A. P. Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") , shifted the School from the said building to a building nearby and delivered vacant possession of thepremises to the appellants. Thereafter, as breach of peace was apprehended relating to the possession of the building, the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and finally disposed of the a said criminal proceedings by holding that the Republic School was in lawful possession of the building. This order of the Magistrate was challenged by the appellants before the High court by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. The High court came to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were totally misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the case and directed that possession of the premises should be restored to the appellants, and pursuant to such direction, possession in fact had been delivered to the appellants on 16/9/1995. On getting possession thereof, the appellants approached the competent authority under the Act to start a new school in the premises and obtained permission thereof by order dated 23-5-1996. Two inhabitants of the locality where the Republic School was continuing, filed a writ petition before the A. P. High court seeking a direction to the educational authorities to take possession of the premises and to continue the Republic School in the said building. It was also prayed in the aforesaid petition that, since there has been gross mismanagement in managing the affairs of the School, the government should be directed to take over the management of the educational institution in public interest in exercise of the power under Section 60 of the Act. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 12/6/1996, allowed the writ petition and directed the State government to take possession of the property under Section 60 of the Act with the further observation that the present appellants may establish their rights by filing appropriate proceedings in the civil court. By a review petition being filed, the learned Single Judge modified his earlier direction and came to hold that it would be open for the State government to take appropriate action under Section 60 of the Act and pass appropriate orders thereon after holding due enquiry. But so far as the direction that the Republic High School should continue in the building, the review order confirmed the same. On appeal being carried, the division bench dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in a writ of mandamus filed by the inhabitants of the locality, it was not open for the High court to go into the question of title and come to a conclusion on the legality of the two sale deeds by virtue of which the appellants have acquired title to the premises, and the High court, therefore, committed error in entering into that question. Mr. Rao also submitted that the power to take over management of an educational institution in public interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 of the Act vests with the State government and it is only on being satisfied about the existence of the preconditions therein, the State government can pass appropriate orders. It was, therefore, not justified on the part of the High court to issue directions to hold an enquiry for exercising power under Section 60 of the Act, as the learned Single Judge has done in the review order.;