IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.12856/2008]

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOARD, KAGAL .......APPELLANT(S)  

Versus

KAGAL TALUKA KALA KRIDA SHAIKSHANIK AND SANSKRUTIK MANDAL & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.  

2. The appellant is the Municipal School Board, Kagal, ('the Board', for short).

Sant Rohidas Vidyamandir, the fourth respondent,  is  one of  the schools  run by the

Board.   The said school,  which was running classes  from first  to  fourth standards,

started fifth standard classes (Standard V Division) from the session 2007-2008.  The

first respondent, which runs a secondary school (V Standard to X Standard) in the Zila

Parishad area adjoining the municipal area, filed W.P. No.8261/2007 seeking a direction

to  the  State  of  Maharashtra,  the  appellant  and  the  Deputy  Director of  Education,

Kolhapur Region to close down the V Standard started in the fourth respondent school

and  a  further direction  not  to  grant  any  recognition  or  permission  to  the  fourth

respondent  school  to  start Standard V Division.   They  also   sought   an  interim

direction  restraining  the  fourth  

.......2.

- 2 -

respondent  school  from running  or  continuing  the  V  Standard  classes.   The  first

respondent contended that starting of the V Standard classes by the fourth respondent

school was unauthorised and illegal.

3. In the said writ petition, the High Court, while issuing rule on 8.4.2008 issued

an interim direction to the fourth respondent to close down the V Standard and transfer

the students of V Standard to other schools as per the desire of the students and their

guardians, and issue school leaving certificates to the students to enable them to get

admissions in other authorised schools.   The Deputy Director of  Education and the

petitioner were also directed by way of interim order to ensure that the V Standard

classes  opened  by  the  fourth  respondent  was  closed  down  and  the  students  were

transferred to  other schools.   The said interim order is  challenged by the appellant

Board which runs the fourth respondent school.   

4. We find that the High Court has virtually allowed the writ petition by the

interim order,  that too  by an irreversible peremptory direction that the students  be

shifted to other schools.  The students were not parties before the High Court and they

have been asked to take school leaving certificates from the fourth respondent school and

shift to other schools.  Such a peremptory irreversible step should not normally have

been granted by  way  of  interim relief, unless

......3.

- 3 -

extraordinary or special circumstances exist.   We find that there are no such special

circumstances.   

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  first  respondent  submitted  that   the  fourth

respondent was one of  the feeder schools for the first respondent school,  and if  the

fourth respondent  runs  classes  from V Standard onwards,  their  admission  will  be

affected. This contention, we are afraid, is not sound.  The question is not whether first

respondent is affected, but whether fourth respondent was doing something which was

illegal and whether the first respondent had any right to complain.

6. Primary education  is  defined  in  Section  2(15)  of  the  Bombay  Primary

Education Act, 1947 as meaning education in such subjects and upto such standards, as

may be determined by the State Government from time to time. Primary education,

therefore, does not mean education from first to fourth standards only, as contended by

the first respondent.  

7. The State Government has, in its counter filed before the High Court, clearly

stated  that as  per the provisions of  the Mumbai Primary Education Rule 1949  the

Primary Education Boards of Municipal Council are empowered to open standards as

natural growth in the primary schools being run by them, that  

........4.

- 4 -

the  Primary Education  Board  had  opened  the  V  Standard  classes  in  the  fourth

respondent school  in pursuance of  such natural growth and that no permission was

required to open V Standard classes as natural growth in schools run by Municipal

Board.  It  was further categorically stated that the Board was authorised to open V

Standard  as  natural  growth  in  the  fourth  respondent  school  and  that  was  not

unauthorised  or  illegal.   We may also  refer  to  the  Government  Resolution  dated

14.11.1979 of the State Government relied on by the first respondent itself which says

that classes V to VII may either be annexed to secondary schools or to primary schools

run by local bodies.  If that is so, primary schools run by Boards,  prima facie, can run

classes V to VII. Be that as it may.  All that we are pointing out is there was absolutely

no basis for the High Court at the stage of admission of the writ petition filed by the first

respondent to assume that the starting of V Standard by the fourth respondent school

was unauthorised or illegal and direct closure by way of interim relief.  

8. We, therefore,  allow this  appeal,  set  aside  the  interim order.   The fourth

respondent school run by the appellant can, therefore, have V, VI and VII Standards,

subject  to  the final decision in the  writ  petition.   We are told  that  the  issue as  to

whether   Standards  V  to  VII  can be part  of  primary   

......5.

- 5 -

schools, is causing considerable confusion in the State.  In view of it, we request the High

Court to dispose of the Writ Petition expeditiously.  

  ...........................J.    ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ...........................J. January 05, 2009.           ( J.M. PANCHAL )