Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 113 (KER)

Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala

2000-02-21

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2000
Judgment :- Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. Govindh K. Bharathan, Mr. P. Ramakrishnan and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Writ Appeal No. 325 of 1994 was filed by the Vice President of the Parent Teachers Association, V.V.P. High School, Palakkad against the judgment in O.P. No. 3772 of 1989 dated 7.6.1993, which was filed by the additional 5th respondent R. Janaki Ammal, who was the Manager of the School. 3. Writ Appeal No. 456 of 1994 was filed by the State of Kerala and the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum and another against the very same judgment impleading the then manager R. Janaki Animal as R1 and the Headmistress of the school as R2 and the President of the Parent Teacher Association as R3 and one V.N. Prameswaran, who is the owner and proprietor of the school and the son of the then Manager Janaki Ammal. 4.O.P. No. 3772/89 was filed by R. Janaki Ammal with the following prayers: "i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to return the buildings, furniture, accessories etc. of the school to the petitioner on expiry of 31.5.1989; ii) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the government proposing to take over the management of the V.V.P. High School, Palakkad; iii) issue an ad-interim order of stay of all further proceedings for taking over the management of the school and the consequent admission of the students for the academic year 1989-90, pending disposal of the Original Petition; iv) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; v) to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext. P4 notification and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari and other appropriate writ, order or direction; and vi) to quash Ext. P5 order by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction". According to her she became the Manger of the School in the year 1960 and because of old age and other financial difficulties she was no longer in a position to run the school effectively and the maintenance grant of Rs. P5 order by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction". According to her she became the Manger of the School in the year 1960 and because of old age and other financial difficulties she was no longer in a position to run the school effectively and the maintenance grant of Rs. 2,000/- per year for the school is hardly sufficient to make both ends meet and that the portions of the building of the school have become dilapidated posing a grave threat to the life of the students, which fact had been reported as early as in the year 1976 by the officials of the PWD to the District Educational officer and that many walls of the building are leaning to one side and are beyond repairs. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had no other option but to take steps for the closure of the school. She issued a notice to the Director of Public Instructions disclosing her intention to close down the school with effect from 1.6.1989 as contemplated under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and R.24(1) Chap. V of the Kerala Education Rules. After a lapse of about seven months from the date of issuing the notice under Ext. P1, she was served with an intimation requesting her to be present at the school on 16.1.89 for an enquiry in regard to the closure of the school. She participated in the enquiry, but nothing was heard thereafter. While so, she came across a news item published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 20.4.1989 to the effect that the management of the school had been taken over by the Government for a period of five years. The said news item published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 20.4.1989 is produced and marked as Ext. P3. However, she had not been served with any order or intimation in that regard. She was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against the proposed take over of the management of the school. Even the order directing the take over of the school has not been served on her. The Government have in purported exercise of the powers conferred by S.14(2) of the Kerala Education Act read with R.1(5) Chap. She was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against the proposed take over of the management of the school. Even the order directing the take over of the school has not been served on her. The Government have in purported exercise of the powers conferred by S.14(2) of the Kerala Education Act read with R.1(5) Chap. XX of the Kerala Education Rules issued a notification taking over the management of the V.V.P. High School, Palakkad for a period of five years. The notification issued by the General Education (F) Department dated 28.3.1989 and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 31.3.1989 is produced and marked as Ext. P4. It is also submitted that the petitioner had sent Ext. P1 notice to the Director of the Public Instructions intending to close down the school on the expiry of 31.5.1989 as required under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and R.24(1) of Chap. V of the Kerala Education Rules and that there is no question of any permission being obtained from the educational authorities before effecting the closure of the school especially since sub-r.(2) of R.24 of Chap. V of the Rules have been struck down by this Court. However, the Director of Public Instructions, Trivandrum passed an order intimating the petitioner that her request in Ext. P1 is rejected (Ext. P5). Having left with no other remedy the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds raised in the Original Petition. It is contended among other grounds, that the closure of a school does not require any consent from the authorities concerned, especially since R.24(2) of Chap. V requiring permission from the Director of Public Instruction had been struck down by this Court and that the only legal obligation of the petitioner is to issue one year's notice expiring with the 31st May of any year of her intention to close down the school, which has already been done as evidenced by Ext. P1. Since Ext. P5 order of the Director of Public Instruction was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner to close down the school without any opportunity, the said order is liable to be quashed. 5. Ext. P1 is the notice dated 24.5.1988 issued under S.7(6) of the Act and R.24(2) of Chap. P1. Since Ext. P5 order of the Director of Public Instruction was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner to close down the school without any opportunity, the said order is liable to be quashed. 5. Ext. P1 is the notice dated 24.5.1988 issued under S.7(6) of the Act and R.24(2) of Chap. V of the K.E.R. Petitioner gave the said notice expressing her intention to close down the school for the reasons stated in Ext. P1. In the last paragraph of Ext. P1 it is stated thus: "In the aforesaid circumstances and due to the bad condition of the school buildings in general and the default in payment of grant in due time and inadequacy of the grant and the rent and the insufficiency of the class rooms according to rules and dangerous condition of the buildings, I am unable to continue to run the school and I request that I may be given permission to close down the school with effect from beginning of the academic year 1989-90 and end of academic year 1988-89". Ext. P4 is the notification dated 28th March 1989 issued by the Government which reads as follows: "652 No. 509/89.- Whereas the Manger and Correspondent of the V.V.P. High School, Palghat Educational District in the Palghat District has given notice to the Government signifying her intention to close down the said school; And whereas, the Government are satisfied that in the interest of pupils of the said school it is necessary to take over its management for a period of five years; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(2) of S.14 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (6 of 1959) read with sub-r.5 of R.1, Chap. XX of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, it is hereby notified that the entire management of the V.V.P. High School, Palghat Educational District in the Palghat District shall immediately be taken over by the Government of Kerala for a period of five years". Ext. P4 is sought to be quashed in this Original Petition under which the Government have proposed to take over the school. 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the President of the Parent Teachers Association. Ext. P4 is sought to be quashed in this Original Petition under which the Government have proposed to take over the school. 6. A counter affidavit was filed by the President of the Parent Teachers Association. According to them the nearby schools are already overcrowded and do not have the facilities to accommodate more students and that the petitioner had deliberately ommitted to carry out even the essential repairs and maintenance of the school building and she did not spend any amount for several years for any purpose connected with the functioning of the school. Under such circumstances the Parent Teachers Association came forward to provide water facility etc. and brought to the notice of the authorities concerned through various communications. According to them there is absolutely no justification on the part of the Manager to close down the school and that the reasons stated by the petitioner for the closure of the school are not relevant and that the statement regarding financial di difficulty is not factually true. It is also stated that the closure notice mentioned in the Original Petition was not submitted to the competent authority in time and that the time limit prescribed by the rules is mandatory and hence the closure of the school with effect from 1.6.1989 was not legally possible. It is submitted that the public interest demanded that the Government should invoke the power conferred under S.14 of the Kerala Education Act and that the action of the Government under Ext. P5 is neither illegal nor unjust and the facts stated in Ext. R5(1) will clearly show that there was sufficient justification for the Government to invokes. 14(2) of the Act in the instant case. It is also submitted that under the provisions of the Constitution the State has got a duty to secure education to all citizens and to provide free and compulsory education for children is one of the duties of the State as provided under Art.45 of the Constitution and that the State shall also, as enjoined under Art.41 of the Constitution make effective provisions for securing education to the deserving class of citizens. 7. Mathews P. Mathew, J. by his judgment dated 7th June. 1993 allowed the Original Petition filed by Janaki Ammal. 7. Mathews P. Mathew, J. by his judgment dated 7th June. 1993 allowed the Original Petition filed by Janaki Ammal. The learned judge was of the opinion that once notice is served by the Manager of an aided school in terms of the statutory provisions the closure of the school would take place automatically on the expiry of the notice period and in this case the learned Government Pleader, on verification of the records, fairly conceded before the judge that the records clearly show that Ext. P1 notice was received well within time. The learned judge in coming to the said conclusion, has also relied on the judgments of this Court reported in Krishna Kumar v. State of Kerala, 1972 KLT 496, and in Subramanian v. State of Kerala, 1986 KLT 359 and the learned judge has also rejected the contention of the Parent Teachers Association to the effect that the petitioner Manager Janaki Amma is not the sole proprietor of the school and she is not even a trustee in respect of the school properties and that the property is held by a trust created by the petitioner's deceased father-in-law and that the petitioner's son is the sole trustee. The learned judge has also rejected the contention of the Parent Teachers Association by holding that he was not called upon to interpret the provisions of the will of the founder of the trust because the Court was concerned only with the right of the manager to close down the school under the law. The learned judge has also relied on the decision reported in Balakrishnan v. Ramaseshan,1993 (1) KLT 519, which laid down clearly that unless the following ingredients are present the power vested in the Government under S.14(1) and (2) of the Act cannot be invoked viz. (1) the manager is guilty of neglect to perform any of the duties imposed by the Act; (2) taking over the management of the school must be in the public interest. The learned judge was of the opinion that Ext. P4 order whereby the management of the school was taken over by the Government was again based on the assumption that the intention of the Manager as disclosed in Ext. P1 is somewhat undesirable and that the exercise of a legally vested right cannot be said to be undesirable in any way. P4 order whereby the management of the school was taken over by the Government was again based on the assumption that the intention of the Manager as disclosed in Ext. P1 is somewhat undesirable and that the exercise of a legally vested right cannot be said to be undesirable in any way. However, taking note of the expiry of four years' time and the commencement of the 5th academic year the learned judge accepted the fervent plea made by counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 in the Original Petition and permitted the Government to continue in the management of the school till the end of the current academic year to safeguard the interest of the pupils and the teachers. Counsel appearing for the Parent Teachers Association had also supported this plea. In the circumstances, the learned judge granted permission to the State of Kerala to continue to be in management of the affairs of the school till the end of the current academic year on condition that respondent 1 to 3 shall hand over possession of the school and its properties both movable and immovable on 1.4.1994 to the petitioner and the State of Kerala shall give necessary instructions to the District Collector to fix and disburse the rent payable to the petitioner under S.14(5) within four months from the date of the judgment. 8. Aggrieved by the above judgment two appeals, as already mentioned were filed, one by the State of Kerala with a petition to condone the delay of 230 days in filing the Writ Appeal and the other by the Parent Teachers Association. The delay was condoned by the Division Bench by order dated 29th March, 1994. In W. A. No. 325 of 1994, CMP No. 2734 of 1999 was filed by one V.N. Parameswaran, S/o. R. Janaki Ammal, the petitioner in the Original Petition, who passed away on 24.9.1998. He filed the said application to implead himself as the legal heir of the said Janaki Ammal, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.6.1999. Counsel for the impleaded party V.N. Parameswaran filed CMP No. 2730 of 1999 in W.A. No. 456 of 1994 to receive certain documents as Exts. P6 and P7, which was allowed by order dated 24.6.1999. He has also filed CMP No. 6864 of 1999 in WA No. 325/1994 to receive Exts. P8 to P13. Counsel for the impleaded party V.N. Parameswaran filed CMP No. 2730 of 1999 in W.A. No. 456 of 1994 to receive certain documents as Exts. P6 and P7, which was allowed by order dated 24.6.1999. He has also filed CMP No. 6864 of 1999 in WA No. 325/1994 to receive Exts. P8 to P13. CMP No. 6863/1999 was filed by the Parent Teachers Association to receive Annexure Al, which is the photo copy of the letter addressed to the Secretary to Government, General Education (F) Department, Trivandrum from the District Educational Officer, Palakkad. C.M.P. Nos. 6863 and 6864 of 1999 were allowed by us. 9. We heard counsel appearing for the respective parties. 10. It is contended by the Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that taking over the management of the school by the Government was fully justifiable in the larger interest of the student community, public and the State and that the modus operandi of opening and recognition of the schools are explained in Chap. V of the K.E.R. which contains procedures for determining and identifying the areas where new schools are to be opened and that the school that commenced functioning cannot be closed down by the whims of the successor Manager. It is submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge reported in 1993 (1) KLT 519 stands stayed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP and that the matter is now pending vide Civil Appeal No. 5352 of 1993 and therefore the said judgment cannot be relied on by the learned Single Judge (now dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1.5.1996) and that the Government are free to decline the request contained in Ext. P1 notice. According to the learned Government Pleader S.14 of the Kerala Education Act speaks of the taking over of the management of a school and S.14(2) says that in cases of emergency where the Government are satisfied with such course, if it is necessary in the interest of the pupils of the school, they may, without any notice under S.14(2) of the Kerala Education Act to the Manger of the educational agency, take over the management of any school after publication of the notification to that effect in the Gazette. Thus it is submitted that the Government are given ample power to take over the management of a school in the larger interest of the society as per the objective sought to be achieved by the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that on the basis of S.14 of the Kerala Education Act the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires reconsideration. It is also submitted that if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is given operation, it will serve as a precedent to certain managers if it subserve their personal ends and that it is apprehended that there will be serpentine queue of ever so many managers of the aided schools who would give notice to close down their institutions and in such circumstances it will be absolutely impossible fort he Government to provide alternative avenues for the student community continuing their studies in such schools. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment under appeal opens a flood gate of similar requests from other managers. Moreover the closure of the school would cause untold difficulties to the teachers in the school, who would be thrown out from the school and that the teachers eligible for protection will be given that benefit, but those teachers who were appointed after 1984 will be thrown out as they are not eligible for protection and that the absorption of such thrown out teachers of aided schools in the Government schools would affect the recruitment policy of the Government through PSC for various reasons. In any view of the matter it is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have declined the relief sought for in the Original Petition. 11. In W. A. No. 325 of 1994 which was filed by the Parent Teachers Association, it is submitted that under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, an institution once established for the educational purposes for the pupils of the locality it has to continue its existence until the strength of the students is reduced to a level which will make it uneconomic to run and that the educational institutions cannot be closed on any other ground. It is also submitted that the scope and content of S.14 of the Act have not been appreciated in their correct perspective by the learned Single Judge and that the decisions of this Court have to be read in the context of the object of the Act, the powers of the Government under S.14 and all the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in this Writ Appeal, this aspect has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge rendering the judgment liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the learned Single Judge ought not have placed total reliance on the judgments cited. It is submitted that the question of merely closing down a school after the statutory period of notice, without considering all other aspects of the matter does notarise. The civil rights of the manager regarding the school, its administration, its properties, whether it constitutes a Trust etc. have to be decided by a competent Civil Court. When such matters are in issue, the Manager as far as the Department is concerned, can only carry on the day-to-day administration of the school and will not have the power either under S.7(6) of the Act or R.24 of Chap. VI to demand closure of the school. In any case the positive direction to hand over the school and its properties to the petitioner on 1.4.1994 is unsustainable and in the very nature of this case no such positive direction could have been given. 12. As referred to above, CMP No. 6863 of 1999 was filed by the appellant in W. A. No. 325/1994 to receive Annexure Al. It is submitted that as per the judgment in O.P. No-. 20307 of 1999 dated 9.8.1999 of this Court, filed by the Parent Teachers Association against the State of Kerala and others, the Government was directed to dispose of the representation dated 22.1.1999 filed by the petitioner, Ext. It is submitted that as per the judgment in O.P. No-. 20307 of 1999 dated 9.8.1999 of this Court, filed by the Parent Teachers Association against the State of Kerala and others, the Government was directed to dispose of the representation dated 22.1.1999 filed by the petitioner, Ext. P2 in the said Original Petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and that at the time of hearing a detailed report was submitted on behalf of the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, which was handed over to the appellant Parent Teachers Association and the same is produced and marked as Annexure AI. In the circumstances it is prayed that the said document produced as Annexure Al may be considered at the time of hearing of the Writ Appeals. 13. Along with CMP No. 2730 of 1999 the present proprietor of the school V.N. Parameswaran filed Exts. P6 and P7. Ext. P6 is the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5352 of 1993 filed by the State of Kerala and another against N.R. Ramaseshan and another. Ext. P7 is the Government Order No. G.O. (Rt) No. 2992/94-G.Edn. dated 4.8.1994 authorising the District Collector. Palakkad to take over the management of V.V.P. High School, Palakkad, who shall nominate an officer in consultation with the District Educational Officer, Palakkad, to function as Manager of the school during the take over period. Mr. P. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Proprietor V.N. Parameswaran, who is the son of Janaki Ammal, submitted that the school was an unaided school and notice dated 24.5.1998 was served on the authorities under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act for closing down the school with effect from 1st June, 1989 and by notification dated 28.3.1989, the Government took over the management of the school for a period of five years and that the sanction to close down the school was also turned down by the Government against which O.P.No. 3772 of 1989 was filed on behalf of the school management challenging the above two orders. The Parent Teachers Association of the school also got themselves impleaded as an additional respondent in the Original Petition. The Parent Teachers Association of the school also got themselves impleaded as an additional respondent in the Original Petition. This Court, as already noticed, found that once notice under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act is served by the Manger of an aided school on the concerned authorities in terms of the statutory requirements, the closure of the school would take place automatically on the expiry of the notice period. Since O.P. No. 3772/1989 was heard and the judgment rendered almost after the lapse of four years, this Court accepted the submission made before the Registration Act, 1860, the respondent herein. On 21.2.1985, the manager of the school served a notice upon the appropriate educational authorities under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, stating that he would be closing down the school on and with effect from 1.6.1986. On 13.2.1986, the Director of the Public Instruction declined permission to the Manager to close the school purporting to exercise his power under R.24(2). On 5.3.1986, the Manager wrote to the Director of the Public Instruction stating that according to law, the manager does not require the permission of the Director of the Public Instruction to close down the school and that his right to close down the school is absolute once he has given the one year notice required by S.7(6). On 31.5.1986, the Manager reported that he is closing the school with effect from 1.6.1986. On 11.9.1987, the Government passed the impugned order under S.14(2) of the Act taking over the management of the school. The order recites that since an emergency has arisen as contemplated by sub-s.(2) of S.14 read with S.14(1), the notice under sub-s.(1) of S.14 is being dispensed with and management of the school taken over. The respondent-management questioned the said order by way of Writ Petition in the Kerala High Court. It was allowed by a learned Single Judge. On appeal filed by the State of Kerala a Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In this appeal, the validity of the aforesaid orders is questioned by the State of Kerala. We are of the opinion that the question raised in these appeals have become academic. Even if it is assumed that the order dated 11.9.1987 was validly made, the period of five years prescribed therein has expired on 11.9.1992. In this appeal, the validity of the aforesaid orders is questioned by the State of Kerala. We are of the opinion that the question raised in these appeals have become academic. Even if it is assumed that the order dated 11.9.1987 was validly made, the period of five years prescribed therein has expired on 11.9.1992. An order under S.14(1) read with S.14(2) cannot be made for a period exceeding five years. It is not brought to our notice that any other or further order has been made under S.14 on or after 11.9.1992-. 17. It is argued by the learned counsel for the school that as contemplated under S.7(6) of the Act and R.24(1) of Chap. V of the Rules the petitioner in the Original Petition issued notice on 24.5.1988 and that R.4(1) of Chap. V of the Rules practically reproduced 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 r.(2) introduced in the year 1965 provided that the Director has to consider all aspects of the question and grant permission and that his order is to be final. But the sub-rule was struck down by this court in 1972 KLT 496, Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala, on the ground that it was beyond the rule making powers conferred by the Act. 18. It is beneficial to extract S.7(6) and R.24 of the Rules. S.7(6) reads thus: "No manager shall close down any school unless one year" s notice, expiring with the 31st May of any year, of his intention so to do, has been given to the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. Rule 24 reads thus: "24. Closure of private schools:- (1) No private school shall be closed down without giving the Director one year's notice expiring with the 31st of any year of the intention to do so. (2) The Director may, after considering all aspects of the question, grant permission for the closure of the school and recognition of such school shall lapse. No application for withdrawal of the notice after the issue of permission shall be entertained unless adequate reasons are adduced to the satisfaction of the Director. (2) The Director may, after considering all aspects of the question, grant permission for the closure of the school and recognition of such school shall lapse. No application for withdrawal of the notice after the issue of permission shall be entertained unless adequate reasons are adduced to the satisfaction of the Director. The order of the Director in the matter shall be final." In our opinion in S.7(6) of the Act, the Manager's right to close down his school is preserved subject to his complying with the conditions laid down in the said Section insisting one year prior notice. In our view, it is the right of the manager to close down the school under the Section and it cannot be treated as an act of neglect within the meaning of S.14(1) as argued by counsel appearing for the appellants. Provisions of S.7 and R.24(1) of Chap. V do not speak of any permission from any one and that the only obligation of the manager is to give one year's notice of intention to close down the school (Balakrishnan v. Ramaseshan, 1993 (1) KLT 519 =1993 (1) KLJ 735). Therefore, 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. There is therefore no question of permission being obtained before closing down the school. 19. We have already referred to the argument of the learned Government Pleader, counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 456 of 1994. S.14(1) of the Act deals with the power of the Government to take over the management of a school. S.14(1) reads thus: "14. There is therefore no question of permission being obtained before closing down the school. 19. We have already referred to the argument of the learned Government Pleader, counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 456 of 1994. S.14(1) of the Act deals with the power of the Government to take over the management of a school. S.14(1) reads thus: "14. Taking over management of schools.- (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." From a close scrutiny of the above provision it is clear that three conditions among others, should be satisfied: (1) there should be something to suggest that the manager has neglected to perform any of his duties under the Act or the Rules; (2) he should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed take over; and (3) the causes, when shown, have to be considered by the Government before final decision is taken. 20. As noticed earlier the only duty required to be performed by the manager was to issue notice contemplated under S.7(6) of the Act, which Janaki Ammal has rightly done as evidenced by Ext. P1. But she was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against the proposed take over of the management of the school. The decision of the Government to take over the school under S.14(1) of the Act without hearing her is not valid at all. A reference to the judgment cited and reported in Subramanian v. State of Kerala & Ors., 1986 KLT 359 in this connection will be apposite. It is held: "The provisions of S.7 and of R.24(1) of Chap. V do not speak of any "permission", from any one. A reference to the judgment cited and reported in Subramanian v. State of Kerala & Ors., 1986 KLT 359 in this connection will be apposite. It is held: "The provisions of S.7 and of R.24(1) of Chap. 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 ample 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 of law, that someone else like the manager should carry the burden for ever. 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)." 21. The Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred by S.14(2) of the Act read with R.1(5), Chap. XX of the Rules issued a notification taking over the management of the school for a period of five years. This notification was issued on 28.3.1989 and published in the Gazette on 31.3.1989. Ext. P4 notification, in our opinion, is wholly vitiated by malafides. The conditions necessary for invoking S.14(2) is conspicuously absent and the purported take over of the management of the school is wholly unauthorised and illegal. Needless to say the action of the Government in proceeding to take over the management of the school is in gross' violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that there are two other Government schools located within a radius of 1 KM from the school in question and that these schools can very well cater to the needs of the students of the locality. The interests of the students will not be jeopardised in any manner by the closure of the school especially since the petiitoner in the Original Petition had given notice disclosing her intention to close down the school as contemplated under S.7(6) of the Act and R.24(1) of the Rules. We have already held that the closure of a school does not require any sanction from the authorities concerned especially since R.24(2) of Chap. We have already held that the closure of a school does not require any sanction from the authorities concerned especially since R.24(2) of Chap. V requiring permission from the Director of the Public Instruction had been struck down by this Court. 22. The Government Pleader, at the time of hearing expressed the difficulties to absorb the students in other schools. The alleged worry of the Government to absorb the students or the staff elsewhere cannot have any bearing on the closure of the school by the writ petitioner when the law permits so. Ext. P5 order of the second respondent, in our view, is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. By Ext. P4 the Government declared its intention to take over the management of the school with immediate effect for five years. The period expired on 28.3.1994. This was precisely the reason why the learned judge permitted the Government to continue in the management of the affairs of the school till the end of the academic year 1993-94 despite the finding that Ext. P4 is unsustainable in law. The stay order obtained in the Writ Appeal has also enabled the Government to issue Ext. P7 notification and run the school for a period of five years from 1994, which is in addition to the period of five years the appellants obtained to run the school during the pendency of the Original Petition. In other words, the appellants have been able to give effect to an order issued under S.14(1) of the Act on 31.3.1989 continuously for ten years even though the order was set aside by this Court and identical question arising under the Kerala Education Act was answered and the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court. The law on the subject is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court referred to earlier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held down that the Parent Teachers Association has no locus standi to challenge the closure of an aided school. 23. The law on the subject is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court referred to earlier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held down that the Parent Teachers Association has no locus standi to challenge the closure of an aided school. 23. In the circumstances, we direct the appellants, State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to General Education Department, the Director of the Public Instruction and the District Educational Officer, Palakkad and the District Collector, Palakkad to hand over possession of the school and its properties, both movable and immovable, to the additional 6th respondent V.N. Parameswaran, Proprietor, V.V.P. High School, Palakkad on 1.4.2000 and the State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to General Education Department shall give necessary instruction to the District Collector to disburse the rent payable to the Additional 6th respondent under S.14(5) within two months from today. Though no plea was made by the appellants that they should be permitted to continue in the management of the school till the end of the current academic year, this Bench, considering the interests of the students and the teachers, permit the Government to continue to be in management of the affairs of the school till the end of the current year and shall hand over possession of the school and its properties on 1.4.2000. Both the Writ Appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs.