W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** ## **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** K.BALAN MASTER, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O KUNJIKANNA NAMBYAR, KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KUTHUPARAMBA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY VIDE NO.3/1944) & KUTHUPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, RESIDING AT POURNAMI POST PINARAYI-670741, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADVS. T.ASAFALI LALIZA.T.Y. ## **RESPONDENTS:** |1|STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO| |---|---| ||GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,| ||THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |2|JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,| ||GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-| ||695001.| |3|ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF| ||KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.| |4|THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,| ||OFFICE OF THE RDDE, KANNUR-670001.| |5|THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,KANNUR-670001, KERALA.| |6|THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THALASSERY, -670101, KANNUR| ||DISTRICT, KERALA.| |7|MR.SASTHYAN NARAVOOR, AGED 62 YEARSS/O KRISHNAN, POURNAMI,| ||POST, NARAVOOR-KUTHUPARAMBA-670643, KANNUR DISTRICT,| ||KERALA.| |8|ADDL.R8:ANEESH KOYYODAN, S/O NANU, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA| ||(CHONORKKENDI), PACHAPOYKA P.O, ERUVATTY VILLAGE,| ||KUTHUPARAMBA,| |9|ADDL.R9:SHYAM PRASAD M., S/O GOPALAN, RESIDING AT V.G.| ||HOUSE, THOKKILANGADI, KUTHUPARAMBA (ADDL.R8 & R9 ARE| ||IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02-08-2022 IN IA NO.1/2022)| ||BY ADVS.| ||ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA| ||KALEESWARAM RAJ| A.ARUNA VARUN C.VIJAY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).28793/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** ## **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 28793 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** ||SATHYAN NARAVOORAGED 62 YEARS'SOUPARNIKA', NARAVOOR| |---|---| ||KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670643| ||BY ADV A.ARUNA| |**RESPONDENTS:**|| |1|STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO| ||GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001| |2|DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL| ||EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014| |3|DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT| ||EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR JUBILEE SHOPPING COMPLEX,| ||THALASSERY, PIN - 670101| |4|KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KUTHUPARAMBA, REG NO.| ||S.3/44 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR,| ||PIN - 670643| |5|MANAGER, KUTHUPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,| ||KUTHUPARAMBA, PIN - 670643| ||BY ADVS.| ||GOVERNMENT PLEADER| ||ASAF ALI T| ||LALIZA.T.Y.(K/1427/2002)| |THIS|WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON| |11.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).25268/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY|| |DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:|| **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 1** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** **----------------W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** WPC No. 25268/2021 is filed challenging Ext P14 Government order whereas WPC 28793/2022 is filed by the 7[th] respondent in WPC No. 25268/2021 seeking a declaration that the 1[st] respondent government is liable to take over the management of Koothuparambu Higher Secondary School as per Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and also for other consequential reliefs. Since both these writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of as per this common judgment. WPC No. 25268/2021 is treated as leading case and the facts of the said case are adverted to in this judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are as follows: Petitioner in WPC No. 25268/2021 is the elected Secretary-cum- Manager of Koothuparambu Higher Secondary School which is established and run by the Koothuparambu **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 2** Educational Society, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its own registered bye-law which is approved by the department. The above school is a pre-KER institution which was established in the year 1944. The 7[th] respondent is a former member of the society who was expelled from the membership of the society in the year 2001 and he has filed innumerable vexatious litigations against the society. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 is the memorandum of association of the society and Ext.P1(a) is the certificate of registration dated 30.12.1944. Ext.P1(b) is the registered Rules and Regulations of the Society dated 30.11.1944. Ext.P1 (c) is the amendment to the bye-law of the society bearing no. 4/2002. Ext. P1 (d) is the registered amendment to the bye-law which was adopted by the General Body meeting of the society held on 25.01.2004. By Ext.P1(d) amendment, the tenure of the governing committee of the school was enhanced to 7 years from 5 years as is evident from Ext.P1 (e). By Ext.P2, the then Manager of the school made a **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 3** request to the 3[rd] respondent DEO to approve the amendment of the bye-laws of the society. Later, by Ext.P2(a), the amendment to the bye-laws of the society was approved. Petitioner relying on Rule 23(d) of Ext.P1(c), contended that the amendment of the bye-law shall come into force immediately from the date of its registration. On the basis of the same, the petitioner would contend that the bye-law has been amended whereby the tenure of the governing body was extended to 7 years and the same was approved by the General body meeting held on 24.05.2009 and the same was duly registered before the District Registrar and also approved by the Education Department. After the expiry of the outgoing governing body of the society, election to the new governing committee was held on 26.09.2019 strictly in accordance with rules and regulations and under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba as is evident from Ext P3 report of the Advocate Commissioner. In the said election, 21 members including the petitioner were elected to ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 4** the governing committee and the petitioner was elected as Secretary-cum-Manager of Koothuparambu Higher Secondary School. After the petitioner was elected to the said post, he made an application before the DEO Thalassery for approval of his Managership but the same was returned as per Ext.P4 order, on the ground that there is an interim order in WPC No. 27584/2019 (the correct number being WPC No. 25784/2019) not to approve the appointment of the Manager without the leave of the court. Thereupon, by Ext.P5 order, the Government entrusted the management of Koothuparambu Higher Secondary School to the 6th respondent DEO Thalassery which was challenged in WP(c) No. 7210/2020 and the same was allowed as per Ext.P6 judgment. Though an appeal was filed, Ext.P6 was confirmed in Ext.P7 judgment. Later on, the application for approval of the petitioner as Manager of the School was again rejected by the 6[th] respondent as per Ext.P8 stating that he had not produced the approved bye-law of the society. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, an appeal was preferred before ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 5** the Director General of Education as per Ext.P9 on condition that the petitioner shall produce the approved bye-law of the society within a period of one year. Thereafter, by Ext.P10 order, the DEO approved the appointment of the petitioner as Manager. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the 7[th] respondent filed an appeal before the Government and the Government as per Ext.P11 order, without even hearing the petitioner set aside Ext.P10 and remitted the matter back to the Director General of Education. Though Ext.P11 order was issued on 21.04.2021, the same was not served on the petitioner till 23.07.2021. Ext.P11 order was challenged in WPC No. 14873/2021 and Ext.P11 order was set aside by this court as per Ext P12 judgment, directing the Director General of Education to re-hear the matter. While so, the Director General of Education issued another order, denying plus one admission in the management quota taking a stand that there are management issues. The petitioner challenged the said order in WPC No. 19017/2021 and Ext.P13 interim order was issued ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 6** staying the same and permitting admission of the students to plus two classes under Management Quota. Pursuant to the order issued by this court, the matter was posted before the 2[nd] respondent and by Ext.P14 order, Ext.P9 order approving the appointment of the petitioner as Manager was set aside and consequential directions were issued entrusting the management of the school to DEO Thallasery, holding that the General Body meeting of the society held on 14.10.2018 amended the byelaw of the society whereby reducing the tenure of the governing committee and the term of the manager of the school from 7 years to 5 years, which has not been approved by the Department. Petitioner further submits that the 7th respondent has filed a suit as OS No. 395 of 2019 before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba, inter alia contending that the tenure of the managing committee has been reduced to 5 years and the election was held for 7 years and therefore the election is void and prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and other duly elected officer **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 7** bearers and governing body members from acting as such. The Munsiff Court declined the prayer for temporary injunction as per Ext.P15 order. Though an appeal was filed as C.M.A No. 16/2021, the same was dismissed as per Ext.P18 order for default, as the counsel for the 7[th] respondent reported no instructions. Petitioner further submits that by the issuance of Ext.P14 order, the 2[nd] respondent has virtually adjudicated the validity of the election to the governing committee which is a matter pending consideration in OS No. 395/2019. Petitioner on the strength of Exts. P16 and P16 (a) would submit that no amendment has been made to the bye-law after 2009 **.** Therefore, the petitioner contended that Ext.P14 order is against the law and the same is liable to be interfered with. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent Government mainly contending that after the election conducted on 26.09.2019, the petitioner approached the 6th respondent seeking approval of his appointment as manager, and the same was not approved in view of the interim order ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 8** passed by this court in WPC No.27584/2019 (the correct number being WPC No.25784/2019). The specific stand taken in the said counter affidavit is that without an approved bye-law the appointment of the manager cannot be approved. Several civil disputes are pending before the petitioner and the contesting party respondent and the respective rights of the parties have to be decided by the competent civil court, but in the meanwhile Government has the power to control the administration of the school to protect the interest of the students and it is in the said circumstance that the managership of the school was entrusted to the District Educational Officer, Thalassery, temporarily. Going by Rule 2 of Chapter III KER, production of approved bye-law is mandatory for approval of managership. The General Body of the society held on 14.10.2018 amended the bye-law of the society reducing the tenure of the administrative committee and the managership from 7 to 5 years and the amendment to the bye-law has to be approved by the Deputy Director of Education **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 9** which has not been done in the present case and therefore, the appointment of the manager cannot be approved. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 7th respondent. Relying on Exts.R7(a) and R7(b), it is contended that the bye-law has been amended whereby the term of the committee and managership was reduced from 7 to 5 years. An enquiry was conducted by the Government regarding the alleged mismanagement and an FIR was also registered as is evident from Exts.R7(c) and R7(d). As per Rule 2 of Chapter III KER, the bye-law is to be approved by the Deputy Director of Education which has not been done in the present case. The further stand of the 7[th] respondent is that after the amendment of the bye-law, the same was produced before the registrar as per Ext.R7(j) wherein it was brought to the notice of the registrar that the term of the committee and managership was reduced from 7 to 5 years. Since the amendment of 2018 was prior to the elections, there is no valid election in terms of the amendment. It is taking into **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 10** consideration of all these aspects that the Government issued Ext.P14 order, which is legal and valid. 5. Additional respondents 8 and 9 have also filed a detailed counter affidavit. The appointment of the writ petitioner as manager will be detrimental to the society, its members and the school. A crime has been registered against the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriation of assets of the school and for receiving bribe for effecting appointments in the school. The bye-law has been amended on 14.08.2018 whereby the term of the governing body was reduced to 5 years which has been duly communicated to the Registrar. It is incumbent on the educational authorities to examine and be satisfied regarding the term of appointment of the manager by perusing the approved bye-law which could not be done, since the amendment to the bye-law carried out in the general body meeting held on 14.08.2018 is not approved by the Deputy Director of Education. It is further submitted that going by Ext R8 (e) circular, while approving ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 11** the bye-law, the educational officer shall specify the period of managership in the approval order while giving approval to the appointment of managers, so as to bring in clarity regarding the term of office of the manager. The respondents relying on Ext R8 (g) and R8(h) would submit that the Registrar of Societies has already received the amended bye-laws and no separate procedure for registration of the amendment of bye-law is provided as per the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Since the issues are pending consideration before the competent civil court, this court cannot adjudicate the said issues in this writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. The question to be considered is as to whether valid reasons are available in the present case so as to issue Ext P14 order impugned in this writ petition, whereby the managership was entrusted to the 6th respondent, DEO, Thalassery. Going by Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act 1958, the Government is well within its powers to **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 12** take over the management of a school in the public interest when the manager of an aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties envisaged as per the Act and the Rules. The reasoning in Ext P14 is that the bye-law of the school was amended on 14.10.2018 whereby Rule 10(a) of the bye-law was amended reducing the tenure of the governing body from 7 years to 5 years and the said amendment is not seen approved by the registrar and consequently not approved by the educational authorities also and therefore without an approved bye-law, the appointment of the manager cannot be approved. Another reason stated in Ext P14 is that various civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and the contesting party respondent and based on the above-said reasons, the administration/functioning of the school was entrusted to the District Educational Officer, Thalassery till an approved bye-law is submitted as per the provisions of the Act. Rule 2 of Chapter III KER deals with the constitution of corporate management which mandates that the constitution of ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021** **& 28793 of 2022 13** an educational agency must be subject to Rules approved by the director (the power now being delegated to the Deputy Director as per G.O.(P) No. 52/80/G.Edn dated 07.05.1980) which should contain among other things, the conditions and tenure of their office, and the same is reiterated in Ext R8 (e) circular issued by the Director of General Education. Rule 4 of Chapter III KER deals with the approval of the appointment of the Manager. The contention of the petitioners is that as per Ext P1 (c), Rule 10 (a) of the bye-law was amended on 24.05.2009 whereby the term of the managing committee was modified to be for a period of 7 years instead of 5 years. Whereas the contention of the official respondents as well as the party respondents is that bye-law was amended on 14.10.2018 whereby the tenure of the governing body was reduced to 5 years from 7 years as is evident from Ext R 7(a) and R 7 (b) resolution and minutes of the General Body meeting and that the said amendment has been duly brought to the notice of the District Registrar. The registration of the **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 14** same by the District Registrar is not specifically mandated as per the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Managing Committee, Khalsa v. Mohinder Kaur (Smt) and another, (1993) Supp 4 SCC 26**_ . In view of the conflicting stand taken by the parties, the said issue has to be considered first. It is not in dispute that the memorandum of association of societies which is produced as Ext P1 was duly registered as Ext P1 (a) as on 30.11.1944. The General Body meeting held on 24.05.2009 carried out amendment to Rule 10 (a) whereby the term of the managing committee was increased to 7 years and the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur as per Ext P2 (a) order dated 23.12.2009 approved the constitution of the Koothuparambu High School as per Rule 2 of Chapter III KER. After the expiry of the term of the outgoing governing body of the society, elections were held on 26.09.2019 under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner appointed as per order in OS.No.411/2018 before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba and Ext P3 report of **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 15** the Advocate Commissioner would reveal the said aspect. The above said fact would reveal that the election to the governing body in the general body held on 26.09.2019 was held under the supervision of the Civil Court. The appointment of the petitioner as Secretary cum Manager was not approved in view of an interim order passed by this court in WPC No. 25784/2019 filed by the 7th respondent. It is seen that the said writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 13.02.2020 in the light of the issuance of Ext P5 order produced in this writ petition whereby the management of the school was entrusted with the District Educational Officer, Thalassery. This court entertained a challenge against Ext P5 in WPC No.7210/2020 and by taking into consideration the parameters laid down in Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act 1958 disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P6 judgment whereby Ext.P5 was set aside. While disposing of the said writ petition as per Ext.P6, this Court has also considered the contentions of the 7th respondent herein relating to the election **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 16** and the amendment of the bye-law and held in paragraph 15 of the said judgment that those are all matters for adjudication by a competent civil court. Though an appeal was preferred as W.A. No. 1146/2020, the Division Bench as per Ext.P7 judgment upheld the findings in Ext.P6. After issuance of Exts. P6 and P7 judgment, the approval of the petitioner as manager was again rejected holding that approved bye-laws had not been produced against which an appeal was preferred which is allowed as per Ext.P9 and pursuant thereto Ext.P10 order was issued approving the appointment of the petitioner as the elected manager. On the basis of the revision petition filed by the 7th respondent, Ext.P10 order was stayed as per Ext.P10 communication which was also challenged by the petitioner in WPC No. 14873/2021 and this court as per Ext.P12 judgment, set aside the said order directing a final hearing on the revision filed by the 7[th] respondent and subsequently, Ext.P14 impugned order was issued. 8. It is relevant to note that the 7[th] **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 17** respondent has filed a suit as OS NO.395/2019 challenging the election mainly contending that as per the amendment of the byelaw, reducing the term of the committee to 5 years from 7 years the election conducted for 7 years is liable to be interfered with and a petition was filed in the said suit seeking interim injunction and the said I.A. dismissed as per Ext.P15 order. Paragraph 14 of the said order which is relevant for consideration of these writ petitions reads as follows: _“14. Another contention of the petitioner is that though the tenure of the managing committee was reduced to five years from seven years by amendment, the election notification was to the effect that the election was for seven years. Hence, the election held on the basis of the invalid and illegal election notification is invalid, void and illegal. Per contra the respondents contended that as per the bye laws of 1[st] defendant society any amendment made by the general body shall come into force only after due registration of the same before the District Registrar, and that the amendment proposed to reduce the tenure of the governing body to five years from seven years is not yet registered before the District Registrar. Except the mere allegation of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that the amendment proposed to reduce the tenure of the governing body to five years from seven years was in force on the date of election notification. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that the_ **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 18** _election notification is invalid cannot be accepted for the time being.”_ (underline supplied) Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the 7[th] respondent before the District Court, Thalassery as CMA No. 16/2021 which was dismissed as per Ext P18 as the counsel reported no instruction. In view of Exts. P15 and P18, it could be seen that the challenge against the election of the petitioner based on the contention that there is an amendment reducing the term of office of the managing committee to 5 years was considered by the competent civil court and the prayer for injunction was repelled. Going by Ext.P2(a) dated 23.12.2009, the constitution of the Koothuparambu Educational Society was approved by the Deputy Director of Education after the amendment on 24.05.2009 wherein the term of the managing committee was increased to 7 years. It is also relevant to note that in Ext. P16, specific information was sought for from the District Registrar as to whether any amendment of the bye-law was carried out after 2009, to which an information was given that bye-law had not been ## **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 19** amended after 2009. The specific case of the 7[th] and 8[th] respondents is that the bye-law has been amended in the General Body meeting held on 14.10.2018 reducing the term of governing body from 7 years to 5 years. In this context, it is relevant to consider the contention of the petitioner based on Ext.R7(k) which is produced along with IA No. 5 of 2023 which is the notice as well as the minutes of the general body meeting of the society held on 14.12.2018 which is relied on by the 7th respondent in support of his contention. The notice of the general body meeting contains the agenda, in which the amendment of the bye-law reducing the tenure of office from 7 years to 5 years is not seen included. The minutes of the meeting also show that the four items shown in the agenda are decided on a single page, i.e., page no. 8, whereas the decision regarding the reduction of term of office from 7 years to 5 years is entered on page No.38 which was presented in the nature of a resolution which is seen passed by the General Body and the decision of the General Body is seen entered on page No.39. **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 20** Based on these, it is the contention of the petitioner that Ext.R7(k) is a concocted document. Though it is contended that details of Ext.R7(k) as stated above could raise suspicion on the case put forward by respondents Nos.7 and 8, I am not entering into any finding on the same, since it is an issue now pending consideration before the competent civil court. Admittedly, the amendment of the bye-law increasing the term of office of the managing committee to 7 years has been approved by the department as per Ext.R2(a). This aspect has been endorsed by the Government in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit. As regards the amendment of the bye-law in the general body meeting held on 14.12.2018 claimed by respondents No.7 and 8, a perusal of Ext.P16 would reveal that no amendment is seen carried out after 2009. This court in Ext.P6 judgment has held that the issue regarding the election or the amendment of the byelaw etc. are matters to be adjudicated by the civil court and the said findings were upheld by the Division Bench of the this court in Ext.P7 judgment. Though **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 21** in the civil suit, injunction was sought by the 7th respondent on the very same grounds raised in this writ petition, the same was declined as per Ext P15 order of the civil court and the appeal filed challenging the same has also been dismissed as per Ext.P18. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the claim if any of the 7[th] and 8[th] respondents regarding the amendment of the bye-law on 14.12.2018 has to be adjudicated in a competent civil court, for which suits are already pending. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, this court has to consider whether the entrustment of the management of the school to the District Educational Officer, Thalassery as per Ext.P14 requires interference. Essentially Ext.P14 was issued on two grounds, one the approved byelaw has not been produced by the manager and secondly, there are civil suits pending between the parties and the government has no role in it. This court in _**Abdulrahiman v. State, 1978 KHC 68 and Parent Teachers Association v. State of Kerala, 2000 KHC**_ _**156**_ has held that taking over of the management of **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 22** the schools shall only be invoked very sparingly and when the conditions stipulated in the Act are fulfilled. Admittedly, the petitioner was the elected secretary and manager in an election conducted in the presence of an advocate commissioner appointed as observer by the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamaba in OS No. 411/2018. The interim injunction application filed by the 7th respondent is already dismissed and the appeal against the same also ended up in dismissal. This court has also held that any contention regarding amendment of the bye-law should be adjudicated in a competent civil court. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Government as per Ext.P14 to entrust the management of the school to the DEO Thalassery, appears to be not correct in as much as there is an elected committee and the functioning of the same has not been injuncted by any competent civil court or by this court. It is not in every case that the management has to be entrusted to the educational officer concerned when civil suits are pending between the **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 23** parties and it is incumbent on the Government to decide on the rival claims of the parties on merits, of course, always subject to the complexity of the issues involved (see the judgment in _**Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala, 1986 KHC 467**_ ) 10. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the opinion that the issuance of Ext.P14 order is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly quashed. It is made clear that the quashing of Ext.P14 order will not stand in the way in proceeding with any complaint/enquiry as permitted in Exts.P6 and P7 judgments. It is also made clear that the continuation of the petitioner as manager will also be subject to the civil suits pending between the parties in respect of the election to the managing committee as well as the amendment of the bye-laws. 11. As regards WPC No. 28793/2022, which has been filed seeking a direction to the Government to take over the management of the Koothuparambu Higher Secondary School invoking Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act 1958, I am of the opinion that **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 24** no such direction could be issued by the Court at this stage. It is to be noted that this Court in Exts.P6 and P7 judgment has already granted liberty to the authorities to conduct necessary enquiries and therefore it is made clear that the quashment of Ext.P14 in WPC No. 25268 of 2021 will not stand in the way of proceeding with any complaint/enquiry as permitted in Exts. P6 and P7 judgments. It is made clear that if ultimately Government finds that there are circumstances warranting invocation of Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act 1958, it is for the 1[st] respondent to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with the law. With the above said observation and direction, the above said writ petitions are disposed of. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 25** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28793/2022** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.02.2018 - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2018 IN WPC 11217 OF 2018 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 668/2020/ G.EDN DATED 06.02.2020 - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2020 IN WPC NO. 7210 OF 2020 - Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2020 IN WA 1146/2020 - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 6319353 DATED 14.07.2022 WITH RESPECT TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.07.2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER HOLDING THE PORTFOLIO OF GENERAL EDUCATION AND LABOUR - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 110 OF 2022 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.07.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. G3506/2015 DATED 14.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, KANNUR, THALASSERY TO THE REGISTRAR INSPECTOR GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 26** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25268/2021** |PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF| ||KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGISTERED| ||UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT,1860.| |Exhibit P1(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION| ||OF KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DATED 30TH| ||DECEMBER 1944.| |Exhibit P1(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED RULES AND| ||REGULATIONS OF THE KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL| ||SOCIETY DATED 30.11.1944.| |Exhibit P1(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE BYE-LAWS OF| ||THE KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VIDE| ||NO.4/2002.| |Exhibit P1(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED AMENDMENT TO THE| ||BYE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY VIDE NO.1/2004,| ||WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE GENERAL BODY MEETING| ||OF THE SOCIETY HELD ON 25.01.2004.| |Exhibit P1(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE BYE LAWS OF| ||THE SOCIETY WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE GENERAL| ||BODY MEETING OF THE SOCIETY HELD 24.05.2009.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.07.2009 MADE| ||BY THE MANGER, KUTHUPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY| ||SCHOOL ADDRESSED TO THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL| ||OFFICER, THALASSERY THE 6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN,| ||REQUESTING TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE| ||BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY UNDER KERALA EDUCATION| ||RULES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS KER).| |Exhibit P2(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY| ||DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR APPROVING THE| ||AMENDED BYE-LAWS OF KUTHUPARAMBA EDUCATIONAL| ||SOCIETY PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION MADE BY| ||THE MANAGER, KUTHUPARAMBA HSS.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE| ||COMMISSIONER, WHO WAS APPOINTED AS OBSERVER TO| ||SUPERVISE ELECTION TO THE GOVERNING COMMITTEE| ||OF SOCIETY BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF MUNSIFF,| ||KUTHUPARAMAB VIDE ORDER MADE IN IA| ||NO.2421/2018 IN OS NO.411/2018.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 6TH| ||RESPONDENT VIDE NO.B6/5911/2019 DATED| ||10.12.2019.| **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 27** |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER VIDE NO.G.O (GEN)| |---|---| ||NO.668/2020/G.ED DATED 6.2.2020.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13TH AUGUST| ||2020 MADE IN WPC NO.7210/2020.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26TH AUGUST| ||2020 MADE IN WA NO.1146/2020.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEO,| ||THALASSERY VIDE NO.6/2749/2020 DATED| ||13.11.2020 REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE| ||PETITIONER TO APPROVE HIM AS THE MANAGER OF| ||KUTHUPARAMBA.| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH APRIL 2021| ||MADE IN E.M.4/11627/20/D.G.E ISSUED BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO,B6/719/2021| ||K.DIS DATED 20.04.2021 ISSUED BY DEO,| ||THALASSERY APPROVING THE PETITIONER AS THE| ||MANAGER, KUTHUPARAMBA HSS.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.04.2021 VIDE| ||NO.GEDN-F2/77/2021-G.EDN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF| ||1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30TH JULY 2021| ||MADE IN WPC NO.14873/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE| ||HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER| ||2021 MADE IN WPC NO.19017/20221 ON THE FILE OF| ||THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.| |Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER G.O(RT)| ||NO.4978/2021/GEDN DATED 5TH NOVEMBER 2021| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P15|CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH APRIL| ||2021 MADE IN IA NO.1895/2019 AND 1898/2019 IN| ||OS NO.395 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF,| ||KUTHUPARAMBA.| |Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.09.2020| ||MADE BY THE MR.RAJNEESH KAKKOOTH, MELERI| ||VEEDU, PANNIYORA, POST KUTHUPARAMBA WHO IS THE| ||PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE STATE PUBLIC| ||INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF DISTRICT| ||REGISTRAR, THALASSERY.| |**W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021**|**W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021**| |---|---| |**& 28793 of 2022**|**28**| |Exhibit P16(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 5.10.2020| ||PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT UNDER RTI ACT BY| ||STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF| ||DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THALASSERY.| |Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2018| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P-17|True copy of the judgment dated 5th Day of| ||February 2021 made in OP(C) No.1956 of 2020 of| ||this Honourable Court.| |Exhibit P18|TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 16TH MARCH| ||2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN| ||BAIL APPLN. NO-1848 OF 2017.| |Exhibit P-18|True copy of the judgment dated 4th Day of| ||March 2022 made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal| ||No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Court of| ||Principal Subordinate Judge,Thalasserry| |Exhibit P-18|True copy of the judgment dated 4th Day of| ||March 2022 made in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal| ||No.16 of 2021 on the file of the Court of| ||Principal Subordinate Judge,Thalasserry| |Exhibit P-17|True copy of the judgment dated 5th Day of| ||February 2021 made in OP(C) No.1956 of 2020 of| ||this Honourable Court.| |Exhibit P-19|True copy of the order dated 10th December| ||2018 made in IA No.2420/2018 and in IA| ||No2421/2018 in OS No.411/2018 on the file of| ||the Court of Munsiff,Kuthuparamba.| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R7(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 14.10.2018| ||TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES FROM THE| ||KUTHUPARAMBA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL.| |Exhibit R7(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL| ||BODY MEETING OF THE KUTHUPRAMBA EDUCATIONAL| ||SOCIETY WITH THE NOTICE FOR THE ANNUAL GENERAL| ||BODY MEETING.| |Exhibit R7(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2022| ||ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AGAINST SRI.| ||RAGHAVAN AND BALAN MASTER.| |Exhibit R7(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALSO WAS REGISTERED BY| **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 29** THE KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE AGAINST SRI. RAGHAVAN AND BALAN MASTER. Exhibit R7(E) TRUE COPY OF TE LETTER SENT ON 09.06.2022 SENT BY SRI. PARAMBAN VIJESH AND OTHERS TO SRI. K. BALAN MASTER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R8(g) True RTI Application submitted by Smt.Sajna R.K dated 17.08.2020 Exhibit R8(h) True copy of the reply dated 14.09.2020 Exhibit R8(e) True copy of the Circular No. H2/72141/oo/DPI dated 10.10.2000 Exhibit R8(i) True copy of the communication no. G3-506/2015 dated 14.03.2022 issued by the District Registrar (General) Kannur, Thalassery to Registration Inspector General, Thruvananthapuram Exhibit R8(J) True copy of the Judgment dated 30.09.2020 in WPC 19594/2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala Exhibit R8 (f) True copy of G.O(Rt) No. 668/2020/G.Edn dated 06.02.2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P-20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.12-8-2022 SENT TO THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION,HIGHER SECONDARY SECTION, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28-11-2018 SENT TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,THALASSERRY BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P24 TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P-23. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R7(f) True copy of the relevant pages of document No.2 along with the cover page. EXHIBIT R7(g) True copy of the relevant pages of Document No.3 produced by defendant No.3 in OS 5/19. EXHIBIT R7(h) True copy of the RTI questionnaire submitted **W.P.(C).Nos.25268 of 2021 & 28793 of 2022 30** by the 7th respondent. EXHIBIT R7(i) True copy of the RTI reply dated 20.12.2019 EXHIBIT R7(j) True copy of the request dated 05.11.2018 along with the amendment by Mr. R K Raghavan to the District Registrar PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-3-2023 VIDE NO.DDEKNR/5569/2022-B1 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.6TH JANUARY 2023 MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.40749/2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R8 (k) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THIS IA TO THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DATED 11.04.2023 Exhibit R8 (l) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, AND SUPERINTENDENT, DIRECTORATE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION TO THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREUNDER Exhibit R8 (m) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OS NO. 19/2023(TEMPORARY), FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, THALASSERY (BEFORE THE KUTHUPARAMBA MUNSIFF COURT) Exhibit R8 (n) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. G3 506/2015 DATED 04.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR TO THE REGISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R7(k) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DOCUMENT NO.3.