W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23

W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16736 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1Y. SHAJAHAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O YUNUS KUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS, BISMILLAH COTTAGE, BEACH NORTH, PALLITHOTTAM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691006 2A.K. MOHAMMEDKUNJU, AGED 72 YEARS S/O FATHIMA KUNJU ANZI MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA PO, IKBAR NAGAR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691010 3A. ABDUL MAJEED AGED 70 YEARS S/O FATHIMA KUNJU MUMTHAZ MAHAL, INJAVILA, PERINAD PO, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691601 4SHAMEENA AGED 60 YEARS D/O YUNUS KUNJU, ALSEE MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691010 5SHANAVAS AGED 56 YEARS S/O YUNUS KUNJU AHLAL, ASHRAMAM ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001 6SHAMLA AGED 54 YEARS D/O YUNUS KUNJU MARHAB, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691006 7SALIM AGED 65 YEARS S/O YUNUS KUNJU ISATHUL MANZIL, EDAKOMBAM ROAD, PACHILKKAD, KANIYAMBETTA. PO, WAYANAD, PIN - 673124 ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 2 ``` 8JAMEELA BEEVI AGED 68 YEARS D/O FATHIMA KUNJU FAROOK MANZIL, EZHAMKULAM PO, PLANTATION MUKKU, ADOOR, PIN - 691526 9SUBAIDA AGED 75 YEARS D/O FATHIMA KUNJU HAFSA BUILDING, POWER HOUSE WARD, AS ROAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688004 BY ADVS. K.S.BHARATHAN ALPHIN ANTONY AADITHYAN S.MANNALI VISAKH ANTONY RANCE R. HASNA NAZAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ANNEX -II THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM, THEVALLY, PIN - 691009 4THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013 5A SHANAVAS S/O ASSANARU KUTTY KUTTIYIL VEEDU, VENGA P.O, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690521 6SAIFFUDHIN I S/O HYDROSE KUNJU, KULIRMA, PADANAYARKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN - 690518 7THE MANAGER ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 3 ``` MSHS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS AND MSHSS, MYNAGAPALLY, VENGA P.O, SASATHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690521 8ANEES BASHEER W/O SAIFFUDDIN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS HSST-MATHEMATICS, MSHSS, MYNAGAPALLY, VENGA P.O, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690521 9UMAIBA BEEVI BABU NIVAS, NO 71 POORAM NAGAR, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691002 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SAROJINI K.G. BY ADVS. Martin Jose P P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005) THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005) R.GITHESH(K/630/2002) SAJU WAHAB(K/555/2004) AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012) MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015) ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020) SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016) HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019) S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571) FOR R5 TO R9 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HERAIANG ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).24272/2022, THE COURT ON 24.1.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 4 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 24272 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1A. ABDUL RASHEED KUTTY AGED 60 YEARS S/O ABDUL KHADER, "KUTTIYIL", EDAVANASSERI, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM-690 519. 2C.Y. NIZAM, "KUTTIYIL", AGED 56 YEARS, VENGA P.O, SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM - 690 521. BY ADVS. K.S.BHARATHAN ALPHIN ANTONY AADITHYAN S.MANNALI VISAKH ANTONY CHRISTINE MATHEW RANCE R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCTION (F) DEPARTMENT GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, ANNEX II, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014. 4THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (GENERAL), ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 5 ``` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014. 5THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM, THEVALLY, PIN - 691 009. 6THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013. 7SMT. UMAIBA BEEVI, BABU NIVAS, NO 71 POORAM NAGAR, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 002. 8MISRIYAKUNJU, EZHICHINETUVEEDU, KADATHURMURI, THAZHAVA. P.O, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 539. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.G. SAROJINI BY ADVS. MARTIN JOSE P P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH FOR R8 P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005) THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005) AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012) MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015) SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016) ANNA LINDA V.J(K/1201/2020) HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019) S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571) FOR R7 RENOY VINCENT HELEN P.A. ARUN ROY SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).16736/2023, THE COURT ON 24.1.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 6 ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.** .........................................................…………………... ## **W.P(C) Nos.24272 of 2022 and 16736 of 2023** ..........................................................…………………. Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** In W.P(C) No.16736/2023, the challenge is to Ext.P6 that approved the bye-law to a corporate educational agency, Ext.P19 order of the District Educational Officer, rejecting the challenge to the approval of the bye-law and Ext.P20, approving the byelaw and the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Manager of the school. 2. The brief facts, shone off unnecessary details, necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions, are as follows:- Milad-e-Sheriff Higher Secondary School and Milad-e-Sheriff High School for girls, Mynagappilly are functioning under the corporate educational agency. The petitioners state that the educational agency consists of the successors-in-interest and descendants of late Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty, his wife late Aisha Beevi and her mother late Khadeeja Umma. Aisha Beevi, wife of Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty was appointed as the Manager of the school in the year 1958 and she continued as such till her death on 27-2-1996. Thereafter, Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty became the Manager of the school in the year 1958. W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 7 After the death of Aisha Beevi, Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty married Misria Kunju on 7.3.1997. Disputes arose between Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty and his children in his first wife, Aisha Beevi, after his re-marriage, regarding the properties and management of the schools. O.P.No.1174/2000 was filed by late Nusaiba Beevi, daughter of Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty, challenging his appointment as Manager of the schools. This Court quashed the order of the 4[th] respondent approving the appointment of Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty as the Manager of the schools and appointed the 4[th] respondent to act as the Manager. The judgment in the said O.P. was set aside by the judgment dated 8-11-2012 in W.A.No.2664/2002 following a compromise between the parties. A partition deed dated 25.10.2002 was executed by late Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty and others, including the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners in W.P(C) No.16376/2023. Ext.P1 is the copy of the partition deed dated 25.10.2002 registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Kollam, bearing registration No. 3210/2002. Thereafter also, disputes erupted between Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty and his children. Writ petitions were filed asserting their rights. By a judgment dated 16-1-2012 in W.P(C) Nos.26373/2011 and 34040/2011, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to take a decision on the representation filed against Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty. The 2nd respondent, by order dated 13.6.2012, rejected the representation for removing Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty as the Manager and permitted him to continue as the Manager. Accordingly, Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty continued till his death on 03-03-2020. The petitioners state that, going by Ext.P1, the petitioners and other executants of W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 8 Ext.P1 became entitled to be included in the management of the schools. Writ petitions were again filed when the 3[rd] respondent proceeded to approve the byelaw, which was in terms of Ext.P1. There were writ petitions filed thereafter also, and ultimately, by Ext.P5, Ext.P6 byelaws were approved. The said approval was again confirmed by the Additional Director of General Education by Ext.P7 and Ext. P8 also rejected the further challenge to the Government. Exts.P5, P7 and P8 are under challenge in W.P(C) No. 24272/2022. Though initially a stay was granted, later it was vacated. The petitioners state that they, along with others, had given a power of attorney to the 5[th] respondent on 8.3.2020, authorising him to represent the executants in the running of the schools as per Ext.P10. However, the same was revoked by Ext.P11, and the said action was intimated to respondents 1 to 4 by Exts.P12 and P15 communications. The term of the Manager, who is appointed as per Ext.P6 byelaw, expired on 3.3.2023, and it is stated that the 6[th] respondent is the next incumbent to be appointed as per the bye-law. It is stated that the 6[th] respondent is incompetent to be appointed as the Manager of the schools as he is the power of attorney holder of the 8[th] respondent, Anees Basheer and Ansar Basheer, who are the children of late Nusaiba Beevi, the daughter of late Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty. The 6[th] respondent is the husband of the 8[th] respondent. The 8[th] respondent is employed in the Higher Secondary School as HSST (Mathematics), and by virtue of his continuation as a Teacher, in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, she cannot be a member of the managing body, which is managing the schools. It is W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 9 stated that the 8[th] respondent was appointed by her brother Ansar Basheer as his power of attorney, authorising him to participate in the management of the schools since he is employed outside India. It is her contention that Rule 8 Chapter III cannot be bypassed by giving power of attorney as done by the 8[th] respondent, as the same is against the Statute. Ext.P16 was a representation submitted before the 4[th] respondent pointing out the incompetence of the 8[th] respondent to receive a power of attorney. There is also a prayer not to grant approval to the 6[th] respondent to function as the Manager of the schools. Ext.P16 was directed to be disposed of by Ext.P17 judgment. The 4[th] respondent, after hearing all the parties, rejected the request by Ext.P19 order dated 2.5.2023. Consequently, the 4[th] respondent had also issued an order dated 8.5.2023 approving the appointment of the 6[th] respondent from 4.3.2023 to 3.3.2024 by Ext.P20 order. It is under these circumstances the petitioners challenge Exts.P6, P19 and P20 orders. 3. The official respondents and the contesting party respondent have filed their counter affidavits. The official respondents have filed a counter stating that the appointment of the Manger was in terms of Ext.P6 byelaw and by way of Exts.P5, P7 and P8, the bye-law stands approved, and the same is under challenge in W.P(C) No. 24272/2022. Since the interim order earlier granted was vacated, there is no interdiction in the appointment of a manager consequent to the approval of the byelaws. It is also pointed out that Exts.P10 and P20 orders are issued on the strength of Exts.P7 and P8. Since the managership is limited to one year as per clause 5(6) of the approved byelaw, W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 10 the managers were being approved on rotation as specified in the bye-law. The present Manager was appointed after perusing the original minutes of the meetings of the corporate educational agency that too held on 2.2.2023 for appointing the Manager and that the Manager was elected unanimously. Under such circumstances, the official respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petitions. 4. The party respondents 5 to 9 had also filed a counter affidavit basing their claim on approval of the bye-law, which was in turn based on Ext.P1 partition deed. The counter affidavit proceeds on the basis of Ext.P6 bye-law governs the administration of management of the schools and further that the execution of Ext.P11 revocation of power of attorney will in no way affect the bye-law, which is already approved by Ext.P5 and subsequently approved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders. There were serious litigations between the members of the management prior to the approval of Ext.P6 bye-law, but the appointment of the 6th respondent as Manager was as per Ext.P19 order and there is no illegality in the same. It is also pointed out that Sri. Ansar Basheer had cancelled the power of attorney dated 4.6.2020 and executed another power of attorney in September 2020 instead of Saifudheen, the 6[th] respondent, by Ext.R6(a). Since Ansar Basheer had already cancelled Ext.R6(b) power of attorney in favour of the 8[th] respondent, the bar under Rule 8 of Chapter III of the K.E.R. is not attracted. It is further stated that the petitioners are raising illegal claims over the property and managership W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 11 despite all the orders passed by this Court and by the educational authorities. 5. The petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions stated in the writ petition. 6. W.P(C) No.24272/2022 is filed by the petitioners alleging that they are members of Kuttiyil family, Venga, Mynagappally and that they are trustees of C.M. Ibrahimkutty Charitable Trust. In W.P(C) No. 24272/2022, as stated earlier, the challenge is in Exts.P5, P6 and P12, which are orders approving the byelaw. 7. I have heard Sri. K.S. Bharathan, appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Senior Counsel Sri. S.Sreekumar for the party respondents, Adv. Mohammed Shah for the 8[th] respondent in W.P(C) No.20272/2022 and Smt.K.G.Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. 8. The admitted facts in the above writ petitions are that the MSHSS for Boys and MSHSS for Girls are the schools belonging to a corporate educational agency coming under the administrative jurisdiction of the District Education Officer, Kollam. Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty was the managing authority of the educational agency till his death on 3.3.2020. After his demise, there were disputes among the members of the management of the schools. A bye-law was proposed by the management, which also contains a provision regarding the managership and the same was approved by orders dated 11.12.2020, Ext.P5 in W.P(C) No. 16736/2023. It is also not disputed W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 12 that Aisha Beevi W/o. Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty was the undisputed manager of the schools from 1.3.1995 till 27.2.1996 till her death. When Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty became the manager of the schools in 1996, again, the disputes arose as he had remarried, and it was as a culmination of all these disputes that Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty, his daughters and brothers of Aisha Beevi, executed a partition deed No.3210/2002 dated 25.10.2002. Though it is the contention of the 8th respondent in W.P(C) No. 24272/2022 that Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty had formulated a Will No.11/2012 on 20.2.2012, reserving their right to get included in the management of the schools, the said Will was cancelled by Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty through a registered cancellation deed dated 22.7.2015. The 8[th] respondent submits that the said cancellation is challenged and pending consideration in a civil suit. Thus, as of now, there is an approved byelaw of the educational agency, which is Ext.P7 and is upheld by the Director of General Education and the Government, and the same has become final. Nothing on record suggests any illegality in the byelaws as approved by the educational authorities. The educational authorities did not have a choice but to approve the byelaw in terms of the partition deed, which was entered as part of the compromise between all the parties with the same rights in the property and the management. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Bharathan argues that the nature of the rights granted under Ext.P1 is under challenge, the action taken on the basis of the power of attorney, which was later revoked, is also under challenge. The byelaw which contained a clause that enabled a teacher of the W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 13 school to be admitted to the management of the school, going unnoticed, and the effect of an unregistered power of attorney being against the Registration Act are all matters that go to the root of the disputes, and therefore the impugned orders of the educational authorities cannot be sustained. The specific argument of the learned counsel, Sri. Bharathan is that 6[th] respondent Saifudheen is incompetent to be appointed as the Manager of the schools since he is the power of attorney of Anees Basheer and Ansar Basheer, who are the children of late Nusaiba Beevy, the daughter of late Adv. C.M. Ibrahim Kutty. Sri. Saifudheen is the husband of Anees Basheer. Anees Basheer is employed in the Higher Secondary School as HSST Mathematics, and by virtue of interdiction under Rule 8(a) Chapter III of the KER, she cannot become a member of the managing body that is managing the schools. She also cannot give a power of attorney to another nor can she give a power of attorney to another person in management. Under such circumstances, the respondents did not consider the fact that Anees Basheer was acting as a teacher as well as a member of the corporate educational agency, which is completely against the provisions of the K.E.R. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the party respondents contends that the dispute was settled as per Ext.P1 partition deed and the said fact cannot be disputed by the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the byelaw was approved and challenge to the same until the Government was repelled. The election of the manager was strictly in terms of approved byelaws. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 14 challenge either to the byelaw or the manager appointed in terms of the approved byelaws. 11. Though I find substantial force in the contentions of the party respondents and the official respondents regarding the approval of the byelaw and the election of the management in terms of the bye-law, it is clear that a teacher cannot be part of the managing body either directly or indirectly. The prohibition under Rule 8, as mentioned above, of the KER, applies squarely to a teacher. It is, therefore, declared that no teacher can be part of the managing committee of the schools, either directly or through a power of attorney holder. The educational authorities will ensure the same and will direct the managing body of the educational authorities to be constituted in terms of the provisions of the KER. It is pointed out that there are civil suits pending as O.S.No.115/2020 before the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcotta and O.S.No.359/2020 before the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. Needless to say, the said suits will be decided on their merits. However, till a civil court varies the approved byelaw, the managership can only be in accordance with the clauses in the approved byelaw. The only exception to the same is the application to Rule 8, Chapter 3 of the KER. The interpretation of either Ext.P1 or the nature of right granted under Ext.P1 are all to be the subject matter of civil suits. The educational authorities were fully right in passing the orders impugned in the writ petitions, and no interference whatsoever is warranted. W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 15 In the light of the above discussion, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:- - i. The challenge to the approved byelaws of the corporate educational agency is rejected. Exts.P5, P6 and P12 orders are upheld. - ii. The byelaws will govern the right to managership till any court of competent jurisdiction varies it. - iii.The educational authorities will direct the corporate educational agency to strictly adhere to the provisions of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER and take appropriate action in case there is any variation to the provisions of the KER. - iv.No teacher of the educational agency shall be part of the managing body either directly or through a power of attorney holder. - v. The civil suits pending before the court will be adjudicated on their merits. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** ## **JUDGE** okb/ //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 16 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24272/2022`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED WILL BEARING NO`| ||`II/2012/III DATED 22.02.2012 OF KARUNAGAPALLY`| ||`SRO.`| |`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT BEARING NO III/56/2015`| ||`DATED 22.07.2015 OF KARUNAGAPALLY SRO.`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT`| ||`21.12.2020 IN WPC NO 19977 OF 2020.`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT`| ||`30.09.2020 IN WPC NO 20350 OF 2020.`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2020 BEARING NO`| ||`B3/6618/2020 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO`| ||`ETI/8146/20/DGE DATED 29.03.2021.`| |`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED`| ||`BY THE PETITIONERS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, DATED`| ||`30.03.2021 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).`| |`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2021 IN`| ||`WPC NO. 9090 OF 2021.`| |`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`21.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE`| ||`3RD RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS COURT`| ||`DATED 13.08.2021 IN WPC NO 16565 OF 2021.`| |`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED`| ||`29.06.2022 IN WPC NO 20234 OF 2021 AND WPC`| ||`16565 OF 2021.`| |`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER ON 22.07.2022`| ||`BEARING NO G.O.(RT) NO. 4302/2022/GEDN.`| |`Exhibit P13`|`TRUE COPY OF BYE LAW DATED 04.05.2020`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS`| W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 17 ``` BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF CONSENT STATEMENT DATED 01.10.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FURTHERANCE OF EXHIBIT P13. Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 08.03.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FURTHERANCE OF EXHIBIT P14. Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO: B2/1356/2020/K-DIS DATED 13/10/2020. Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF DEED NO. 3210/2002 DATED 25.10.2002. ``` W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 18 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16736/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED`| ||`25.10.2002 REGISTERED BEFORE THE SUB -`| ||`REGISTRAR OFFICE KOLLAM BEARING NO. 3210 OF`| ||`2002.`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED`| ||`16.01.2012 IN WP (C) NO 26737/2011 AND`| ||`34040/2011 OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT DATED 30.09.2020 IN WP (C) 20350 / 2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP (C) 19977 / 2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020`| ||`BEARING NO B3/6618/2020 ISSUED BY 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW DATED 04.05.2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2021 BY THE`| ||`ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION.`| |`EXHIBIT P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF UNDER`| ||`SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ON 22.07.2022,`| ||`BEARING ORDER NO. G.O (RT) NO. 4302/ 2022/`| ||`GEDN.`| |`EXHIBIT P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 IN W.P`| ||`(C) 24272 OF 2022.`| |`EXHIBIT P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO THE 5TH`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 08.03.2020.`| |`EXHIBIT P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`28.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE`| ||`5TH RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`01.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 1ST`| W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 19 ``` RESPONDENT. ``` ||`RESPONDENT.`| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`01.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`01.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED`| ||`01.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY`| ||`THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED`| ||`23.02.2023.`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.`| ||`8135 OF 2023 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT`| ||`DATED 09.03.2023.`| |`EXHIBIT P18`|`TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONERS DATED 12.04.2023.`| |`EXHIBIT P19`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT`| ||`BEARING NO B.2/993016/2023 DATED 02/05/2023.`| |`EXHIBIT P20`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/05/2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P21`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/03/2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P22`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 03.03.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM`| ||`THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`| |`EXHIBIT P23`|`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/04/2023 TO THE`| ||`PRINCIPAL.`| |`EXHIBIT P24`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE`| W.P(C) Nos.24272/22 and 16736/23 20 ``` PRINCIPAL TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN REPLY TO EXHIBIT P21 DATED 26/04/2023. EXHIBIT P25A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. II/2012/III DATED 22-02-2012 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY SRO EXHIBIT P26A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. III/56/2015 DATED 22-07-2015 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY SRO RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R 6(B)TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 30.06.2020 IN FAVOR OF SAIFUDEEN EXECUTED BY THE ANEES BASHEER EXHIBIT R6(A)TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ON SEPTEMBER 2020 IN FAVOUR OF SAIFUDEEN, EXECUTED BY THE ANSAR BASHEER EXHIBIT R 6(C)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY NOORJAHAN DATE NIL EXHIBIT R 6(D)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY A.SHANAVAS DATED 20-07-2023 ```