High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-06-20Writ petition disposed with directions as state...

A.A. Padmanabhan v. Sub Inspector of Police, Erumapetty; Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam; Indulekha Headmistress in Charge, P.M.Lower Primary School, Kiralur; Assistant Education Officer, Wadakkancherry; Director of Public Instruction, Jagathy

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 12995 of 2012 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. M. Joseph
K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2012-06-20
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed with directions that there will be no damage to the property as apprehended. However, if the petitioner reports any threat to the school’s property, the second respondent (police) will look into it and, if found to be substantiated, will provide protection to prevent damage to the P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur, Thrissur District, including unoccupied structures in the school premises.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.A. Padmanabhan

Respondents

Sub Inspector of Police, Erumapetty Police Station, Erumapetty P.O., Thrissur District
Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur District
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam, Thrissur District
Indulekha Headmistress in Charge, P.M.Lower Primary School, Kiralur, Thrissur District
Assistant Education Officer, Wadakkancherry, Thrissur District
Director of Public Instruction, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Paul Mathew (Perumpillil)
• Sri Prasun S

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran (Government Pleader)
• Sri N.N. Sugunapalan (Sr.)
• Sri S. Sujin

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, A.A. Padmanabhan, is the Manager of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur, Thrissur District. He filed a writ petition seeking mandamus relief to ensure police protection to prevent any damage to the school’s property (including unoccupied structures not part of the L.P. School) and to take effective action on complaints (Exts P12, P14, P17, P20, P21) pertaining to threats or incidents regarding the school. The petition arises in the context of a notice to close the school (Ext P1) and the Director of Public Instruction’s (6th respondent) acceptance of that notice, with reminders and prior Court proceedings including a related writ and review petition which culminated in Ext P11. The petitioner argues, citing Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 804), that closure would automatically take place at the expiry of the notice period without extra permission. The respondents include the school’s Headmistress, education officers, police officials, and the DPI. The court notes that a related decision by the Deputy Director of Education, arising from Ext P11, is under challenge in another petition (W.P.(C). No.13702/12) and that it would not be appropriate to adjudicate issues arising from that pending matter. The bench ultimately disposed of the petition, directing that if there is any threat to property, the 2nd respondent should investigate and provide protection if necessary, while acknowledging the absence of any current certainty of damage.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mandamus relief
Closure of an institution on expiry of notice period without additional permission (cited proposition from PTA v State of Kerala)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to secure adequate police protection to prevent damage to the property of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur, and to ensure action on multiple complaints (Exts P12, P14, P17, P20, P21) alleging threats or incidents affecting the school. Relying on the principle from Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala that closure may occur on expiry of the notice period without further permission, he contends that threats to property necessitate immediate police protection. He frames the relief as essential to safeguard the school’s premises, including unoccupied structures, and requests proactive measures from the second respondent to counter any damage.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is no imminent threat or damage to property and that the Deputy Director of Education already acted under Ext P11, with related disputes being litigated in another proceeding (W.P.(C). No.13702/12) currently pending before this Court. They urge the Court not to entertain broader mandamus relief and to leave resolution to the ongoing proceedings, noting that if a threat is substantiated, the second respondent should examine and provide protection as appropriate.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala	2000 (1) KLT 804	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify the proposition that closure can occur on expiry of the notice period without additional permissions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.A. Padmanabhan v. Sub Inspector of Police, Erumapetty; Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam; Indulekha Headmistress in Charge, P.M.Lower Primary School, Kiralur; Assistant Education Officer, Wadakkancherry; Director of Public Instruction, Jagathy and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934** **WP(C).No. 12995 of 2012 (Y) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **A.A. PADMANABHAN, AGED 52 YEARS MANAGER, P.M.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KIRALUR THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 601.** **BY ADVS.SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.PRASUN.S** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, ERUMAPETTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN - 680 584.** **2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE** - **KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 503.** **3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE** - **KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN - 680 503.** **4. INDULEKHA HEADMISTRESS IN CHARGE, P.M.LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KIRALUR THRISSUR DISTRICTPIN - 680 601.** **5. ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER** **WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 582.** **6. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION** **JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 014.** - **R1-R3,R5,R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)** - **ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC NO. 12995/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** |**EXT.P-1**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.18.3.2010 SENT BY**| |---|---| ||**THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT-DPI**| |**EXT.P-2**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD**| ||**DT.22.3.2010 FOR EXHIBIT P1**| |**EXT.P-3**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICES DT.28.3.2011 ISSUED**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER INFORMING PARENTS ABOUT CLOSURE OF**| ||**SCHOOL.**| |**EXT.P-4**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICES DT.7.5.2011 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER INFORMING PARENTS ABOUT CLOSURE OF SCHOOL**| |**EXT.P-5**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DT.30.5.2011 SENT BY**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P-6**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DT.30.5.2011 SENT BY**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD.**| |**EXT.P-7**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.29.3.2011 MADE**| ||**BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ASST.ENGINEER.**| |**EXT.P-8**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-851/11 DATED**| ||**31.5.2011 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P-9**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.3.6.2011 IN**| ||**WPC NO.14679/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXT.P-10**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DT.10.6.2011 SENT BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P-11**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT.22.11.2011 IN**| ||**WPC NO.14679/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXT.P-12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.2.5.2012 MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P12(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.3.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P-13**|**TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE FLEX BOARDS IN FRONT OF**| ||**THE SCHOOL**| |**EXT.P-14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.10.5.2012 MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P14(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER.**| ## **( 2 )** |**EXT.P-15**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT OF THE LETTER DT.19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE**| |---|---| ||**5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P-16**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NS2/33278/2011/DPI**| ||**DT.17.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P-17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.26.5.2012 MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P17(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.26.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P-18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DT.26.5.2012 FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.**| |**EXT.P-19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 20.5.2012 FILED**| ||**IN THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.**| |**EXT.P-20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.30.5.2012 MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH LETTER**| ||**DT.19.12.2011 OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P-21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.31.5.2012 MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO**| ||**RESPONDENTS 2 & 3.**| |**EXT.P21(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.31.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXT.P21(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.31.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P21(c)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.31.5.2012 ISSUED FROM THE**| ||**OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** - **EXT.R4(a) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DPI DATED 05.06.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT. R4(b) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE SAMRAKSHANA SMAITHI BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT AEO** - **EXT.R4(c) COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI.** ## **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **SD** **K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ. ---------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C). NO. 12995 OF 2012 Y ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20th June, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.M. Joseph, J.** Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: _“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding 1[st] respondent to afford adequate, effective and meaningful police protection ensuring prevention of damage to the property of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur in Thrissur District in Wadakkancherry Educational Sub District of Thrissur District, including the unoccupied buildings/structures in the school compound which are not part of the L.P. School._ _ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to take effective action on Exts.P12, P14, P17, P20 and P21 complaints.”_ _**WP(C).NO.12995/2012 Y**_ _**2**_ 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Manager of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur in Thrissur District. Petitioner gave Ext.P1 notice for closing down the school. It was accepted by the sixth respondent, Director of Public Instruction. There were reminders. Petitioner had also intimated the parents that the school will be closed down on 1.6.2011. Suffice it to say, the matter engaged the attention of this Court. There was also Writ Petition, Review Petition and this Court disposed of the matter by Ext.P11 Judgment. Petitioner has essentially approached this Court complaining of the actions by the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent is none other than the Headmistress-In-Charge of the school. Petitioner has filed various complaints which are included in the prayer which we have already adverted to. Petitioner relies on the Judgment of this Court in Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 804) for the proposition that the closure of the school would take place automatically on the expiry of the notice period and that no _**WP(C).NO.12995/2012 Y**_ _**3**_ permission is required. Petitioner also drew our attention to Ext.P15. 3. Counter Affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent to which a Reply Affidavit is also filed by the petitioner. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is common case that pursuant to Ext.P11 Judgment, a decision was taken by the Deputy Director of Education which is called in question in W.P.(C).No.13702/12 which is pending before this Court. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for us to go into the issues pertaining to the matter pending therein. But, at the same time, we notice that as far as the first prayer is concerned, it relates to the apprehension that there will be damage to property. Certainly, no one can have the right to cause damage to property. Therefore, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: Learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that _**WP(C).NO.12995/2012 Y 4**_ there will be no damage caused to the property as apprehended. However, contrary to the submission made in Court, if the petitioner complains that there is any threat of damage to property of the school by the fourth respondent, before the second respondent, the second respondent will look into it and if it is found that there is substance in the complaint, he will afford protection to the petitioner so as to prevent damage to the property of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur, Thrissur District including the unoccupied building and structures in the school compound which are not part of the L.P. School. Sd/= **K. M. JOSEPH, Sd/= K. HARILAL, JUDGE** **JUDGE** **kbk.** _**//True copy//**_ _**PS to Judge**_ # _**WP(C).NO.12995/2012 Y 5**_