(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44358 of 2025, dated 26.03.2026.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 26.3.2026 passed in W.P.No.44358 of 2025, whereby G.O.(1D) No.84, School Education (MS) Department, dated 16.7.2025, impugned in the writ petition, was set aside and the learned Single Judge issued a set of directions.

2. Shri N.Murali Kumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the appellant is having right in the school, as it belongs to a partnership firm, and the rights of the appellant have been confirmed by an arbitral award passed and, in such circumstances, the writ petitioner/first respondent herein cannot be allowed to run the school on the permission, if any, granted and as directed by the Writ Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that by an order passed in OSA (CAD) No.78 of 2024, the appeal was partly allowed and the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.1068 of 2019 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been set aside and the authorities have to take note of these facts, in as much as the rights of the appellant have been substantiated.

4. Responding to the contentions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, appearing through video-conferencing, submitted that though the appellant had made a claim through the partnership deed which was initially recognized through the arbitral award, the learned Single Judge in the proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Act has set aside the arbitral award and the same was ultimately confirmed by the appellate court in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act and, in such circumstances, the order passed by the Writ Court has to be implemented and the appellant, at this stage, may not have any say and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Shri L.Gokulraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submitted that, based on the directions of the Writ Court, inspection has been carried out and respondent No.1 is still to satisfy the other requirements. Once the requirements are fulfilled, appropriate orders, in accordance with law, will be passed.

6. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. Respondent No.1 claimed that the land and the school building at Q-100-A, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai was allotted to them by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 1984 for establishing a school. Initially, the school called “Maruti Vidyalaya” was run through the educational agency, namely Maruti Educational Trust. In the school run, the appellant along with certain other persons claimed rights through the partnership deed. In respect of the claim made, they approached the civil court, which was referred to arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator, by an award dated 18.03.2019, held that the appellant is having right through the partnership deed. Respondent No.1 has challenged the award in O.P.No.1068 of 2019 filed under Section 34 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 5.6.2024, allowed the Original Petition and set aside the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

8. In the mean time, the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking permission to run the school came to be rejected by the orders of the Government in G.O.(1D) No.84, dated 16.7.2025. The order of rejection was assailed by respondent No.1 before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge, after elaborately considering the issue, by an order dated 26.3.2026, issued the following directions:

               “15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms,

               (i) The impugned G.O.(1D) No.84, School Education (MS) Department, dated 16.07.2025 and the order of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.1131/A3/2024 dated 25.03.2025 shall stand set aside.

               (ii) The application of the petitioner shall stand remanded back to the file of the fourth respondent.

               (iii) The petitioner after making other compliances, shall intimate in writing to the fourth respondent and thereafter, the fourth respondent shall conduct a fresh inspection and upon being satisfied about the compliance of every aspect of the rules, by taking into account the findings given supra in respect of certain requirements, the orders in accordance with law shall be passed, with reference to the recognition of the petitioner – school. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, in any event within four weeks from the date of intimation by the petitioner, in writing, about the compliance made.

               (iv) It is made clear that any order passed by the fourth respondent or the school education authorities would be ultimately subject to the result of the civil litigation pending between the parties.

               (v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

9. The appellant assails the order of the Writ Court in the present writ appeal. When the writ appeal was listed for admission, this Court, by an order dated 24.4.2026, based on the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that when the appeal is pending under Section 37 of the Act before the Division Bench, if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is given effect to, it would ultimately prejudice the rights, held that the inspection and the other proceedings as contained in Para 15(iii) of the order shall go on and the ultimate orders to be passed shall not be given effect to till the next date of hearing.

10. Today, when the writ appeal is taken up for hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Division Bench, by judgment dated 10.06.2026 in O.S.A. (CAD) No.78 of 2024, had confirmed the order passed under Section 34 of the Act by the learned Single Judge, however, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the observations made by the learned Single Judge while the award was set aside on the ground of limitation.

11. In fact, the rights claimed by the appellant through the partnership deed which was allowed by the award passed in the arbitration proceedings had been set aside by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, which has also been confirmed by the Division Bench in O.S.A (CAD) No.78 of 2024 filed under Section 37 of the Act, however, the observations made by the learned Single Judge have alone been set aside. In effect, the appellant is yet to establish her rights based on the partnership firm as claimed by her. Until the appellant establishes her rights, this court cannot restrain the respondent No.1 from running the school, if ultimately permission is granted by the authorities.

12. It is also to be noted that the learned Single Judge in Para 15(iv) has made it clear that any order passed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition or the school education authorities would be ultimately subject to the result of the civil litigation pending between the parties. Since the claim made by the appellant has been negatived and confirmed by the judgment passed O.S.A (CAD) No.78 of 2024 and, as on date, the appellant has not established any right over the property, there would not be any bar for the authorities to pass final orders on the application filed by respondent No.1 for running the school. It is brought to our notice that respondent No.1 is still to comply with certain deficiencies and once the same are complied with, the authorities will pass order on merits.

13. It is made clear that respondent No.1 would be eligible to rectify the deficiencies as pointed out by the authorities and once the same are complied with, the authorities shall pass final order, as directed by the learned Single Judge and, based on the same, respondent No.1 would be entitled to run the school.

14. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error and infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.