JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner in this Original Petition is the Manager of a High School. His grievance is against Exts. P-1 and P-4 orders By Ext. P-4 the 1st respondent-Director of Public Instruction has informed the petitioner his inability to issue orders for the payment of maintenance grant of the petitioners school until the dispute between the petitioner and the department of Co-operative Societies is finally settled. The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether even if there is some dispute regarding the ownership or management of an Aided School, maintenance grant under Chapter XXVIII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, for short, the rules, can be withheld for that reason, as long as there is an approved Manager allowed to function as Manager of the school by the department. 2. A Malayalam Middle School was established by the Madamonkavu Vellala Samajam as early as 1106 M.E. The then President of the Samajam K. S. Velu Pillai was the Manager of the school. The Samajam subsequently was registered as co-operative society by name Perunad Vellala Co-operative Society No. 810 and the assets of the Samajam including the school were taken over by the society. The Manager of the school continued as the President of the Co-operative Society. In the year 1947 the Malayalam Middle School was converted into a new type Middle School now known as Upper Primary School. On application from the Manager of the school to upgrade the same the Government of the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin sanctioned a High School as per order dated 20th June 1950. But neither the co-operative society nor the people of the locality were able to raise the necessary funds for starting the High School section. Under the above circumstances, a resolution was adopted by the Cooperative Society on 20th June 1950 transferring the management of the middle school to the petitioner and also permitting the petitioner to start the High School section. The specific condition in the resolution was that the petitioner should spend all the necessary funds for starting the High School section and the society will have no rights and liabilities in the matter. As per the resolution the petitioner was appointed as the Manager of the school which was recognised by the department also. The specific condition in the resolution was that the petitioner should spend all the necessary funds for starting the High School section and the society will have no rights and liabilities in the matter. As per the resolution the petitioner was appointed as the Manager of the school which was recognised by the department also. A registered agreement on the above lines was also executed between the Co-operative society and the petitioner regarding the transfer of the management of the school. The name of the above cooperative society was subsequently changed to Ranni- Perunad Deseeya Co-operative Society and it went into liquidation in the year 1967. The Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Ranni 3rd respondent in this Original Petition, was appointed as liquidator of the society. The liquidator issued a notice to the petitioner requesting him to deliver back possession of the old middle school buildings to him. The liquidator also claimed management of the upper primary section. The petitioner sent a reply stating that at the most what the 3rd respondent can claim is the amounts advanced by the society for the construction of the old middle school. It seems that the 3rd respondent moved the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Quilon in the matter and the Deputy Registrar wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent District Educational Officer, Pathanamthitta. The 2nd respondent by Ext. P-1 letter dated 23rd October 1969 informed the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Quilon, with copy to the petitioner, that the request of the 3rd respondent-liquidator to approve change of management in his favour can be considered only after his claim for management is established legally. On receipt of Ext. P-1 the petitioner wrote Ext. P-2 letter dated 29th July 1970 to the 2nd respondent reminding him that the disbursal of the maintenance grant due to the school cannot be withheld. In Ext. P-2 the petitioner has also complained that the 2nd respondent returned the application for maintenance grant for the year 1969-70 to the petitioner informing him that on the request of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Quilon the 1st respondent has directed him to defer the payment of maintenance grant till the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is finally settled. Along with Ext. P-2, the petitioner submitted the application for maintenance grant for the year 1970-71 and also re-submitted the application for maintenance grant for the year 1969-70. Along with Ext. P-2, the petitioner submitted the application for maintenance grant for the year 1970-71 and also re-submitted the application for maintenance grant for the year 1969-70. As no orders were received and no maintenance grant was paid on 30th January 1974 the petitioner submitted Ext. P-3 representation to the 1st respondent pointing out that no maintenance grant has been paid to the petitioner school from the year 1969-70. In Ext. P-3 the petitioner also made a request to the 1st respondent to direct payment of the arrears of maintenance grant to him and also to direct the 3rd respondent to establish his claims for the management of the school through a court of law. The 1st respondent replied to Ext. P-3 by Ext. P-4 letter dated 20th May 1974 expressing his inability to issue orders for the disbursement of the maintenance giant until the dispute is finally settled. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court with this Original Petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is pointed out in para 3 of the counter-affidavit that on the advice of the co-operative department, the education department considered the question of payment of maintenance grant to the petitioner and it was decided to withhold the payment of maintenance grant to the U.P. section of the school for 1969 onwards till a decision is taken over the dispute regarding the management of the school. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the 2nd respondent has addressed the 3rd respondent to hasten the settlement of the dispute. 4. Chapter XXVIII of the Rules deals with the payment of maintenance grant. Rule 2 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules which empowers the Director of Public Instruction to refuse or withdraw the whole or any portion of the maintenance grant reads: "The Director of Public Instruction may notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, refuse or withdraw the whole grant or any portion thereof at his discretion for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules thereunder or for any other reasons that may be specified by Director of Public Instruction."� Rule 5 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules makes it clear that the Educational Officer is the officer competent to sanction maintenance grant. Rule 7 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules insists that the application for maintenance grant shall be disposed of by the Educational Officer not later than two months. It is also provided in rule 7 that in the sanction for final grant the sanctioning authority shall record a certificate that the grants sanctioned are in accordance with rules and that the unutilised grant for the previous years has been taken into account in fixing the annual grant. It is clear from rule 3 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules that the maintenance grant is to be paid to the Manager of the school. Rule 7 insists that the Manager of the school shall keep separate accounts regarding the maintenance grant received and the expenditure incurred thereon. It is clear from the rules in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules that maintenance grant at the rates mentioned in rule 4 is to be paid to the Manager of the school. It is also clear from the rules that it is the responsibility of the Manager of the school to receive the maintenance grant, to incur the necessary expenditure permitted by the Rules and to keep proper accounts for the same. The Educational Agency never comes into the picture in all these matters. So, as long as there is an approved Manager for the school, it is his right to claim maintenance grant and the responsibility of the Educational Officer is to disburse the maintenance grant to him if the Manager has complied with the relevant rules in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules. The fact that there is some dispute regarding the management or ownership of a school cannot be a reason to refuse the maintenance grant, as long as there is an approved Manager for the school and as long as he is not prevented from functioning as Manager of the school. The powers of the Director of Public Instruction under rule 2 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules to refuse or withdraw the whole or any portion of the maintenance grant can only be exercised in appropriate cases. Rule 2 cannot be made use of as a weapon to deprive the Manager of a school the maintenance grant he is entitled to if he has satisfied all the conditions required under the rules in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules for the payment of the maintenance grant. Rule 2 cannot be made use of as a weapon to deprive the Manager of a school the maintenance grant he is entitled to if he has satisfied all the conditions required under the rules in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules for the payment of the maintenance grant. If an approved Manager is allowed to continue in a case where a dispute over the management of the school is pending, then the payment of maintenance grant cannot be refused as long as the approved Manager is allowed to continue. The fact that there is a dispute over the management of the school or regarding the ownership of the school cannot be a reason for refusing maintenance grant to the approved Manager functioning as, otherwise, the object of payment of maintenance grant will be defeated and the day-to-day working of the institution may be adversely affected. Admittedly, in this case, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules. In such a case, the fact that there is a dispute over the right of management of the school cannot be a reason for the Director of Public Instruction to invoke his powers under rule 2 of Chapter XXVIII of the Rules though under the rule the Director of Public Instruction has the power to refuse or withdraw the maintenance grant for any other reasons that may be specified. 5. For the reasons stated above, Exts. P-1 and P-4 orders are quashed and the 2nd respondent is given a direction to disburse the maintenance grant due to the petitioner from the year 1969-70 in respect of the U.P. section of the Ranni-Perinad High School if the petitioner has complied with all the conditions insisted by the rules in Chapter XXVIII of the Rules. 6. The Original Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.