Judgment :- 1. The Bazar U.P. School, Thathamangalam is an aided school, and the petitioner is its manager. The institution was started in the year 1907 by his grandfather. He himself became manager in 1945, By about 1984 the petitioner found that because of old age and financial troubles in the family, he was no longer in a position "to run the school effectively". On 4-5-84, therefore, he save Ext.P1 notice of his intention to close it down from 1-6-85, as required by S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. For a long time there was no response either from the Government or from the Educational authorities, despite reminders. On 30-5-85 the Dy. Director of Education. Palghat requested the petitioner, as per Ext. P5 communication, to "set aside the proceedings of closure action", till permission from the competent authority was received. On the same date, the Director of Public Instruction also passed Ext. P6 order in the following terms: "In the Notice read above, the Manager, Bazar U.P. School, Thathamangalam has requested permission of the Director of Public Instruction to close down the said school from 1-6-1985. The reason adduced for is financial troubles. The request made by the Manager has been examined in detail. The controlling Officers and the local public including Parent Teachers Association of the School were consulted. The school is now functioning smoothly in permanent buildings and the accommodation now available is sufficient for the class divisions now existing. There is also sufficient No. of pupils to study in the school. There will be no necessity of additional finance for improving the school in the near future. The academic interest of the locality was also examined. The school has Tamil Medium classes also. The strength of pupils in the school is above 600. There is no adequate facilities in the locality to admit all these students conveniently to continue the education of these pupils. In the circumstances, the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala does not find the reason put forth by the Manager for closing down this school as satisfactory. Considering this and also considering the educational interest of the locality, the request made by the Manager, B.U.P. School, Thathamangalam is rejected. The Manager will continue to run the school. The school will continue to function as usual. The Departmental Officers and Headmaster will also ensure this." This writ petition, as originally filed, was for quashing Exts. Considering this and also considering the educational interest of the locality, the request made by the Manager, B.U.P. School, Thathamangalam is rejected. The Manager will continue to run the school. The school will continue to function as usual. The Departmental Officers and Headmaster will also ensure this." This writ petition, as originally filed, was for quashing Exts. P5 and P6. 2. Subsequently, however, Government issued Ext. P7 notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the management of the school should not be taken over under S.14 of the Act. The notice read: "Whereas, the Government have received reports that you have neglected to perform the duties imposed by the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the rules issued thereunder, namely, by not conducting the school properly and whereas, the Government consider that in public interest it is necessary to take over the management of the Bazar Upper Primary School, Thathamangalam in Chittur Sub District in Palghat District for a period of five years. Now, therefore, you are hereby required to show cause within ten days in writing to the undersigned why action should not be taken for taking over management of the school for the above period." The petitioner furnished Ext. P8 reply, and it is common ground that no further orders were passed in the matter. The writ petition was subsequently amended to include a challenge to Ext. P7 also. 3. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent -State, and a file made available by the larded Govt. Pleader, what seems to have transpired after Ext. P1 notice was this. The Asst. Educational Officer, Chittur enquired into the matter and reported to his superiors that the reasons put forward by the manager for the proposed closure were genuine. But on 25-1-85 the Director wrote to the Government that the closing down of the school would create problems. The neighbouring schools had not enough accommodation to absorb the pupils from the Bazar School; those schools were also not having enough staff. The Chairman of the Chittur Municipal Council had requested the Director to take action for taking over the management of the school. The neighbouring schools had not enough accommodation to absorb the pupils from the Bazar School; those schools were also not having enough staff. The Chairman of the Chittur Municipal Council had requested the Director to take action for taking over the management of the school. S.14(1) of the Education Act empowered Government to do so, when the manager neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on him; and according to the DPI: "the intention of the manager to close down the school is itself a true act of negligence especially when there is no alternative for the education of the children and for providing the staff of the school". He was therefore "strongly" of the view that the management of the school should be taken over with immediate effect. It appears that one Thiruvenkatam, Convener of the "Bazar School Samrakshana Samithi" had also made a representation to the Minister for Education, to take all necessary steps to see that the school was not closed down, particularly because it was catering to the needs of Tamil medium students also. It was in this background that Ext. P7 notice was drawn up by the Government and issued. The other details furnished in the counter-affidavit regarding the number of pupils and teachers involved, the need to protect their interests, the non-availability of additional accommodation in neighbouring schools etc. are not important because, as will presently be seen, the question for decision is one of law-of the power of the Government and the authorities to act in the manner they have done-and not one relating to the propriety of the manager's action. But the averments in paragraph (9) of the counter are relevant, and they are therefore extracted below: "When the schools reopened after vacation the Headmaster of the school, who is none other than the son of the Manager, did not turn up to open the school on 3-6-1985, the date of reopening of the school during 1985-86. However, the Senior Assistant Teacher of the school under the guidance of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittur started the school on 3-6-1985. The school is now functioning smoothly from 3-6-1985. There, is no problem-academic or otherwise facing the school at present. Ext. P6 order of the Director of Public Instruction is being implemented." 4. Exts. However, the Senior Assistant Teacher of the school under the guidance of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chittur started the school on 3-6-1985. The school is now functioning smoothly from 3-6-1985. There, is no problem-academic or otherwise facing the school at present. Ext. P6 order of the Director of Public Instruction is being implemented." 4. Exts. P5 and P6 communication were obviously issued under the assumption that the provisions of the Education Act and the Rules required an aided school manager to obtain "permission" from the authorities to close down the school. Ext. P6 contained the further assumption that it was open to the D.P.I to consider the reasons put forward by a manager, find out their truth or otherwise and take a decision, after taking into account other relevant matters also. And all these, of course, on the strength of reports he could collect behind the back of the manager, and without affording him an opportunity to establish his case. These assumptions however appear to be unsupported by anything in law; and even if the D. P. I. had the power to examine the merits of the manager's case and apply other objective standards in the matter of granting "permission", that could have been done only by following fair procedure and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 5. All that S.7 of the Act provides is (i) that no manager shall close down his school without giving one year's notice (expiring with the 31st May of any year) of his intention so to do; (ii) that in the event of closure be shall make over all the records and accounts of the school to the Department and (iii) that violation of the above two conditions could entail conviction requiring payment of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees. Rule.24(1) of Chapter V of the Rules practically reproduces the terms of S.7 (6), with the difference that the authority to whom the one year notice is to be given is specified as the DPI. Sub-rule (2) introduced in 1965 provided that the Director was to consider all aspects of the question and grant permission and that his order was to be final; but this sub-rule was struck down by this court In Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT. 496) on the ground that it was beyond the rule making power conferred by the Act. 496) on the ground that it was beyond the rule making power conferred by the Act. The respondents have not been able to draw my attention to any other statutory prescription relevant for the purpose; and evidently, the provisions of S.7 and of R.24(1) of Chapter V do not speak of any "permission" from any one. The only obligation of the manager is to give one year's notice of his intention to close down, so that if the authorities are so minded, they can make other arrangements for the staff and the pupils. For the simple reason that it is inconvenient for the State, the DPI. or the others to absorb the students and staff elsewhere, they cannot decree, without authority or law, that someone else like the manager should carry the burden for over 'Public interest' is something that should bother the public authorities more than private agencies, and they are not expected to preach what they cannot practise. Sri. Sivasailam Iyer, a Senior Grade Assistant of the Education Department of the Secretariat, has stated the following, in paragraph (5) of the counter-affidavit sworn to by him on behalf of the Government: "A school is primarily a public institution intended to serve the educational needs of the public and not meant for the benefits of the Manager or the educational agency. Therefore the educational agency or the Manager cannot be allowed to close down the school without satisfying the Government or the authorised officer that the closing down of the school will not adversely affect public interest and the interest of the pupils and the teachers of the school. Therefore on receipt of notice from the educational agency the educational authorities are expected to enquire into the reasons stated in support of the intention to close down the school and to satisfy themselves whether the reasons stated are genuine and whether the closing down of the school will adversely affect the public interest and the interest of the students and the teachers." Lofty ideas indeed; but so long as they do not find their reflection in the statute or the Rules made by those whom he represents, Sri. Iyer cannot expect the court to adopt and enforce them. Iyer cannot expect the court to adopt and enforce them. If the establishment and administration of an aided school have anything to do with Art.19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, the manager of such a school should also have the freedom to close it down, subject of course to such reasonable restrictions as are permissible under Art.19(6) It is also to be remembered that under Art.30, the minorities have also some special rights in the matter of establishing and administering educational institutions, as appears to have been recognised under S.14(9) itself. The validity of R.24(2) of Chapter V was open to doubt for reasons other than those urged or considered in Krishna Kumar's case; but it is enough to say that as it has been struck down by this Court, whatever be the reason, no question of "permission" as required by Exts. P5 and P6 could have arisen. 6. S.14(1) of the Education Act, in purported exercise of power under which Ext. P7 notice was issued to the petitioner, reads: "(1) Whenever it appears to the Government that the manager of any aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and that in the public interest it is necessary to take over the management of the school for a period not exceeding five years, they may, after giving the manager and the educational agency, if any, a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the proposed action and after considering the cause, if any, shown, do so, if satisfied that such taking over for the period is necessary in the public interest." It is clear that for the above provisions to operate, the following conditions, among others, should be satisfied: (i) there should be something to suggest that the manager has neglected to perform any of his duties under the Act or the Rules; (ii) he should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed take-over; (iii) the cause, when shown, should be considered by the Government before the final decision is taken. Now, what is the duty (or what are the duties) under the Act or Rules which the manager in this case has neglected to perform? Ext. P7 does not refer specifically to any single duty of that kind: it simply accuses the manager of having not properly conducted the school. When? Now, what is the duty (or what are the duties) under the Act or Rules which the manager in this case has neglected to perform? Ext. P7 does not refer specifically to any single duty of that kind: it simply accuses the manager of having not properly conducted the school. When? In what manner or in what respect? It seems to me that some kind of specification of the duties neglected to be performed by a manager, apart from a vague accusation of not properly conducting the school, is a minimum requirement of a show-cause notice under S.14(1). Without such a specification, the manager will not get a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposal. On this ground alone, I should say that Ext. P7 cannot be treated as a valid notice under S.14(1). 7. Again, if one reads Ext. P7 along with the Director's recommendations to the Government (in his letter dated 25-1-85), the duty neglected to be performed by the petitioner in this case was one and one only: the issue of Ext. P1 notice under S.7(6). There was no material before Government regarding failure of any other duty; and it will be absurd to hold that issue of a notice as enjoined by the statute itself amounted to neglect of duty thereunder. 8. What is more startling than all the above is the conduct of the respondents in actually taking over the school immediately after issue of the show-cause notice, and without anything more. S.14(1) postulates a consideration of the objections preferred by a manager and the taking of a decision thereon by the Government. Sub-section(4), if not sub-section(1) itself, suggests that some kind of Government order is necessary in that connection, and that a mere notice to show cause cannot itself operate as take-over. Under Sub-section (5), the Collector has to fix the rent payable to the owner of the school, and the owner has a right of appeal to the District Court. It is not as if the Government or its officers can invade the premises of an aided school, drive out its owner or manager, take over its administration and start running it "smoothly", as claimed, in paragraph (9) of the counter, under cover of a communication like Ext. P6 or a notice like Ext. P7. It is not as if the Government or its officers can invade the premises of an aided school, drive out its owner or manager, take over its administration and start running it "smoothly", as claimed, in paragraph (9) of the counter, under cover of a communication like Ext. P6 or a notice like Ext. P7. The taking of a decision after a consideration of the manager's objection to the proposal, and communication of such a decision to him were absolutely indispensable, if at all Ext. P7 was a proper notice and a valid take-over could be thought of on its Basis. "There is no problem-acaderniq or otherwise": claims the counter-affidavit with smug satisfaction. If the State Government believes that its educational problems are solved by the D.P.I. passing some unauthorised orders and the Asst. Educational Officers trying to enforce them by presenting themselves at the doors of aided schools on the reopening day to give "guidance", it is their look out; but how can they assert that the legal problems involved, and staring at their face in a writ petition pending before the High Court, also get resolved by such methods? I therefore set aside Exts. P5, P6 and P7 and declare that all actions taken by the respondents on their basis are invalid and inoperative. However, since the academic year has already entered the last term, I think it will be proper to accede to the request of the Government Pleader to permit the present dispensation to continue till the end of the year, but on condition that the A E. O. returns the school-the buildings, furniture, accessories etc.-to the petitioner - manager precisely and without fail on the 1st of April, 1986 and arrangements are also made, by the respondents, through the District Collector, for early payment of rent due under S.14(5) for the period from 1-6-85 to 31-3-86. It is needless to add that the fixation of rent by the Collector will be subject to sub-section (7) of S.14 of the Act. The petitioner will also be entitled to get his costs from the respondents.