V.K. Vasudevan Namboodiri v. Assistant Educational Officer, Talipparamba North and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 3[RD]DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA,1944 WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` V.K.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI AGED 69 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, MANAGER, POOMANGALAM AUP SCHOOL, PANNIYOOR P.O, KANNUR 670 142. BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) M.VIJAYAKUMAR BALU TOM BONNY BENNY BEJOY JOSEPH P.J. GOVIND G. NAIR ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR 670 141. 2VIJAYAN K.D S/O. DAMODARAN, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR 670 141 RESIDING AT KOCHUKUNNEL HOUSE, UDAYAGIRI P.O, ALAKKODE, KANNUR 670 571. 3DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 141. 4M.P MADHUSOODHANAN AGED 41 YEARS S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT MEETHALE PURAYIL, NEAR KARUVANCHAL POST OFFICE, P.O KARUVANCHAL, KANNUR 670 571. BY ADVS. K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER P.B.MUHAMMED AJEESH RITHIK S.ANAND ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 20222 ``` ``` SMT.ANIMA, GP ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to the 1st respondent that the hearing pursuant to Ext.P2 notice for approval of the appointment of the Manager, Poomangalam AUP School shall be conducted by any other AEO other than the AEO, Thaliparamba, North and for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct a hearing pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. 2. The petitioner contends that since the year 2015, he was functioning as the approved Manager of Poomangalam AUP School. According to him, his term expired in the year 2021. In the said circumstances, he submitted an application before the 1st respondent seeking approval. The AEO, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein issued an order appointing the 4th respondent as the Manager of the School. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring W.P.(C) No.29771 of 2021. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 31.01.2022, this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not been heard, though notice was issued, quashed the impugned order, and directions were issued to the 1st respondent to re-hear the petitioner, and the 4th respondent and pass fresh orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that in tune with the directions issued by this Court, though the petitioner along with the counsel appeared before the 1st respondent, he exhibited a biased and partisan attitude ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` towards them. It is contended that though this Court has directed the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner herein and the 4th respondent and pass an order, the 1st respondent proceeded to summon the rival claimants on two different dates. The petitioner contends that certain documents which were placed on record by the 4th respondent before the 1st respondent were not furnished to the petitioner herein. It is also contended that 1st respondent informed the petitioner that he shall not be permitted to file an objection, cross-examine or produce any materials to substantiate his contentions. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: - 1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent that the hearing pursuant to Ext.P2 notice should be conducted by any other Assistant Educational Officer within the jurisdiction of the District Educational Officer. - 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent, District Educational Officer to conduct a hearing pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent wherein the assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition is controverted. It is contended that the petitioner was directed by the 1st respondent to produce the documents relied on by him to substantiate the sequence of events that led to the petitioner becoming a member of the Malanad Education and Charitable Trust. However, the petitioner failed to ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` produce the documents showing that he is also a member of the Trust. It is stated that the party respondents who are the family members of Sri.M.P.Kunhikannan, a renowned freedom fighter had never inducted any other person in the Trust. It is contended that Ext.R4(3) supplementary Trust Deed executed by the petitioner on 22.07.2020 has been created without the approval of the members of the Board and also the education department. It is on the basis of Ext.R4(3) that a resolution was drafted by the petitioner and the same was submitted for approval. It is contended that it is in order to prevent the 1st respondent from adjudicating the issue that this writ petition has been filed seeking for his removal. 4. Sri.Govind G Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the decision maker’s impartiality is one of the most sublime and cherished ideals on which the rule of law thrives. According to the learned counsel, the attitude shown by the 1st respondent would reveal that he has already taken a decision in the matter which is favourable to the party respondents. Certain observations were made during the course of hearing which raised reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he shall not secure justice at the hands of the 1st petitioner. The learned counsel points out by referring to the notices issued by the 1st respondent that the petitioner was summoned on 10.03.2022 whereas the 4th respondent was summoned for hearing only on 11.03.2022. The 1st ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` respondent had been rattling out the contentions that were likely to be advanced by the said respondent when the petitioner had appeared before the officer. According to the learned counsel, the attitude of the 2nd respondent reeks of partiality and bias. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Union of India and Others v. Sanjay Jethi and another** [2013 (16) SCC 116] and **Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya v. Union of India and Others** [2011 (10) SCC 203]. 5. Sri.Abhilash K.N, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is to prevent the jurisdictional AEO from hearing the matter and nothing more. It is submitted that a perusal of Ext.R4(3) executed by the petitioner claiming that he was the signatory to the document dated 30.06.2005 at the SRO, Kannur, would show the falsity of the assertions made by the petitioner. 6. The learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. It is submitted that the AEO called for certain documents and immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court raising untenable contentions. It is submitted that the 1st respondent had invited the petitioner and the 4th respondent on different dates to suit the convenience of the parties and nothing else. It is submitted that fresh notice shall be issued and both sides shall be heard on the same day after handing over the entire documents relied on by the other side. ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the materials made available. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance to directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent issued notices calling upon the petitioner and the 4th respondent to appear on different dates. It is also contended that the petitioner was informed that he would not be granted an opportunity to counter, reply or cross-examine the party. If such an exercise was carried out, it was not proper. The learned Government Pleader has submitted based on instructions that fresh notice shall be issued and both sides shall be heard on the same day after exchanging the documents relied on by the rival party. The next contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has already taken a view against the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact the 1st respondent is the jurisdictional AEO. The authority is bound to hear both sides and take a decision in accordance with law. Though any person can raise a plea of alleged ‘bias’ to impugn an action, such a plea has to be founded on substantial material qua the officer who acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Such a plea, if raised, must therefore be based on adequate substantial material against such authority. (See **Manish S.Pardasani (M/s.Wine Komder) v. Inspector State Excise and Others. 2019(2) SCC 660).** In my view, the materials highlighted by the petitioner would not constitute a plea of bias attributable against the 1st ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` respondent. In view of the discussion above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent to appear before the 1st respondent on 18.08.2022 at 11 am. The documents relied on by either side shall be furnished to the opposite sides on that day. The 1st respondent shall either hear the petitioner and the 4th respondent on the same day itself or post the case within a period of ten days to enable the parties to advance their contentions. Thereafter, orders shall be passed within a further period of two weeks from the date of hearing. While issuing the order the 1st respondent shall advert to the contentions advanced by both sides and pass a reasoned order. ``` Sd/- ``` **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** sru ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8721/2022` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` |`Exhibit P1`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC`| |---|---| ||`29771/2021 DATED 31-1-2022.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. D/14/2022`| ||`ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-02-2022.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.`| ||`KDIS/C/4090/2015 DATED 10-12-2015.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 01-02-2018.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 31-07-2018.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO C 1257/2018 K`| ||`DIS DATED 20-04-2019 OF THE ASSISTANT`| ||`EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE`| ||`ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER WITHOUT THE`| ||`ENCLOSURES THEREIN DATED 26-07-2021.`| |`Exhibit P8`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE`| ||`DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TO THE ASSISTANT`| ||`EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 22-11-2021.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D/3018/2021`| ||`DATED 13-12-2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE ISSUED BY`| ||`THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2022.`| |`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :`|| |`Exhibit R4(1)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF TRUST DATED`| ||`29.6.2005 EXECUTED BY THIS RESPONDENT AND`| ||`OTHERS.`| |`Exhibit R4(2)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DEED`| ||`EXECUTED BY THIS RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED`| ``` WP(C) NO. 8721 OF 202210 ``` ``` 20.12.2006. Exhibit R4(3)THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DEED EXECUTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER DATED 22.07.2020. Exhibit R4(4)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/3018/2021 DATED 13.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ```