Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Leelamma K M v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 6858/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. R. Ramachandra Menon
  • N. Anil Kumar
Judgment Date
2019-03-13
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Final Disposition
Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Leelamma K M

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DYSP Office, Muvattupuzha
  • Sub-Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station
  • M.M. Babu
  • Prasad C.J.
  • M.K. Vijayan
  • Vishnu M Vijayan
  • Mercy Ualahannan
  • Dona Babu
  • Suni Prasad
  • Adv Manu (Bar Association, District Court, Thodupuzha)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Eldhose Elias
  • • George Kurian
  • • P. C. Anil Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Nidhi Balachandran
  • • P. B. Krishnan
  • • Manu Vyasann Peter
  • • P. B. Subramanyan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Leelamma K M v. State of Kerala & Others concerns a writ petition filed by Leelamma K M, a principal of Bright Public School, seeking police protection for the school, its teaching and non-teaching staff, students, parents and the petitioner’s safety, and mandamus relief to ensure protection of life. The Court noted that the petitioner had been suspended w.e.f. 06.03.2019 and that another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.7032/2019, had been filed on 07.03.2019, with a misnumbering issue acknowledged in the hearing. It was recorded that examinations were over by 28.02.2019, and that the petitioner had allegedly issued an unauthorised ‘Holiday’ declaration for staff. The respondents argued there are 15 trustees, including the petitioner’s husband, and that the management has authority over suspensions; police protection could be provided to prevent threats to approximately 1500 students. The Court observed that, during suspension, the petitioner’s entry as Principal is subject to any stay, modification or other court orders, and referenced Sommy Kunjappan v. CBSE and Sandhya B. Nair v. State of Kerala as judgments that may guide the issue, without expressing a final view. Ultimately, the petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue relief in the pending W.P.(C) No.7032/2019, and the court dismissed the petition. The matter leaves unresolved the precise authority to suspend in CBSE unaided schools and potential jurisdictional questions for future proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner/applicant submitted prayers for a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to provide adequate protection to Bright Public School, its staff (teaching and non-teaching), students and properties, and to safeguard the petitioner’s life. Cf. the counsel’s submissions that the suspension order against the petitioner, issued by the 3rd respondent, has no authority because CBSE governs unaided CBSE-affiliated schools; reference was made to W.P.(C) No.7032/2019 and to the earlier filing, indicating a challenge to the suspension and authority. It was highlighted that examinations had ended and the risk to order was real, prompting refuge to police protection and staying entry into the school during suspension. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw, without prejudice to the rights to pursue the matter in the pending W.P.(C) 7032/2019.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the school is governed by a board of trustees (15 trustees, including the petitioner’s husband) and that suspension/disciplinary action falls within the management’s domain under the CBSE framework; the police can provide protection due to threats to around 1500 students. They asserted the entry of the suspended Principal should remain controlled pending stay or modification of the suspension order by competent authorities or courts. They referenced Sommy Kunjappan v. CBSE and Sandhya B. Nair v. State of Kerala as guiding judgments on the issue, indicating that the matter requires careful consideration within the CBSE unaided-school framework and may involve jurisdictional questions; they sought dismissal or withdrawal with liberty to pursue relief in the pending petition W.P.(C) 7032/2019 and stressed the need for governance by trustees and CBSE authorities.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sommy Kunjappan v. CBSE[2019 (1) KLT 864]Mentioned OnlyCited as a guiding judgment for potential authority to suspend in CBSE unaided schools; no binding application of its holdings in the present case.
Sandhya B. Nair v. State of Kerala[2019 (1) KLT 850]Mentioned OnlyCited as a possible reference for the issues involved; no direct adoption or distinction of its conclusions in the decision.

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 Leelamma K M v. State of Kerala & Others 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 6858 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **LEELAMMA K M AGED 52 YEARS W/O GRORGE ISSACH, NADAPPARAMBEL HOUSE, MECKADAMBU P.O. PRINCIPAL BRIGHT PUBLIC SCHOOL, KUNNACKAL P.O. VALACAM, MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316. BY ADVS. SRI.ELDHOSE ELIAS SHRI.GEORGE KURIAN SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| ||**DYSP OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA**| ||**REPRESENTED THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682 031.**| |**2**|**THE SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.**| |**3**|**M.M.BABU,**| ||**AGED 55 YEARS**| ||**S/O MANI PATHROSE,**| ||**MAPPILAKUNNEL HOUSE,**| ||**CHERIYA OORAYAM, KUNNACKAL P.O**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316.**| W.P(C) No.6858/19 2 - **4 PRASAD C.J. AGED 48 YEARS S/O YACOB C.P. CHERUKUZHIYIL HOUSE(THANIKKATTU) KUNNACKAL P.O. VALACAM, MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316.** **5 M.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 55 YEARS FATHER'S NAME UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS MANAYATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O. VALACAM - 682 316.** - **6 VISHNU M VIJAYAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O M.K. VIJAYAN MANAYATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O. VALACAM - 682 316.** **7 MERCY UALAHANNAN, AGE, FATHER'S NAME AND HOUSE NAME UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT KADATHI, MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316.** **8 DONA BABU, AGED 26 YEARS D/O MM BABU, MAPPILAKUNNEL HOUSE, CHERIYA OORAYAM, KUNNACKAL P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316.** **9 SUNI PRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS S/O PRASAD C.J. CHERUKUZHIYIL HOUSE (THANIKKATTU) KUNNACKAL P.O. VALACAM, MUVATTUPUZHA - 682 316.** - **10 ADV MANU,** **AGE, FATHER'S NAME AND HOUSE NAME UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BELONGING TO BAR ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. - 685 581.** **BY ADVS. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R3 TO 10 SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** W.P(C) No.6858/19 3 ## **SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.SABU GEORGE** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) No.6858/19 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the School named Bright Public School, Valacam, Muvattupuzha including the teaching staffs, non-teaching staffs, students, parents and also its properties. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner. 2. Taking note of the various aspects including the non- mentioning of the earlier writ petition in the body of the writ petition, but for mentioning a wrong number in the last sentence of the affidavit dated 07.03.2019, we passed the following order on 11.03.2019: “During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, that the petitioner was suspended from the service w.e.f. 06.03.2019 and she has W.P(C) No.6858/19 5 already moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7032/2019 on 07.03.2019, without mentioning anything with regard to the present writ petition ie; W.P.(C) No.6858/2019. It is also pointed out that, after the last posting on 08.03.2019, the petitioner quite unauthorisedly issued a communication declaring 'Holiday' for all of the teaching and non-teaching staff from 11.03.2019 to 20.03.2019. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing a writ petition for similar relief and that the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted as to the factual position as to the fact situtaion, the learned counsel submits that the filing of the said writ petition has been mentioned in the last paragraph of the affidavit in support of the writ petition. It is now conceded that the number given therein is not correct and that it was an inadvertent mistake, adding that the correct number of the writ petition ie; W.P.(C) No.6155/2019. 4. What prevented the petitioner from producing a copy of the said judgment also making specific averment in this regard in the writ petition is not revealed. The learned counsel for the petitioner now concedes that the submission made before this Court on the last occasion, that examinations were being scheduled and hence that W.P(C) No.6858/19 6 police protection was necessary was also a mistake and that the examinations are already over on 28.02.2019. Post the matter for further consideration on 13.03.2019, as to the further course of action to be taken.” 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for further consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that an order of suspension has been served by the 3[rd] respondent, which was received by her only yesterday. It is stated that another writ petition, W.P(C) No.7032/2019 is pending before this Court, questioning the authority of the 3[rd] respondent and that the petitioner intends to make necessary amendments by challenging the suspension order also. The learned counsel submits that the 3[rd] respondent does not have any authority to suspend the petitioner and that the power is vested only with the competent authorities under the CBSE, it being a CBSE school. 4. Mr.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 to 10 W.P(C) No.6858/19 7 submits that there are 15 trustees; the husband of the petitioner is also one among the trustees, who was sought to be removed from the Trusteeship, as per the proceedings dated 06.03.2019, on which day itself the petitioner came to be suspended. The proceedings were refused to be accepted, but it has now been served on the parties. There is serious threat to the law and order situation. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that, as many as 1500 students are there and because of the turn of events, there may be threat to the law and order situation. It is stated that the police is ready to tackle the situation by offering adequate protection, as and when that is needed, to the management, the staff (both the teaching as well as non-teaching), the students, parents and others concerned. 6. So long as the petitioner is under suspension, the entry of the petitioner to the school in her capacity as the 'Principal' will be subject to obtaining the suspension order stayed, W.P(C) No.6858/19 8 modified or varied by the competent authorities or by virtue of interference of a Court of law. We are not expressing any opinion, whether the suspension or disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner working in a 'CBSE school' in the unaided sector could be entertained by this Court in a writ petition. This aspect may have to be considered, in the light of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in **Sommy Kunjappan v. CBSE [2019 (1) KLT 864]** , **Sandhya B. Nair v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 850]** and such other verdicts, if any. In view of the disputed question as to the right and the authority of the 3[rd] respondent and also the sustainability of the suspension, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw the writ petition, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter, which is now pending before another Bench of this Court as W.P(C) No.7032/2019, also by filing appropriate W.P(C) No.6858/19 9 proceedings in the said writ petition. Permission is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/-** **N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE** okb //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P(C) No.6858/19 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 26/2/2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR 530/2019 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/2/2019.**