JUDGMENT : Ravindran, J. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, has filed this writ petition in public interest, challenging Ext.P3 letter dated 23-12-2009 sent by the Director of Public Instruction, the first respondent herein, to the 4th respondent, the Headmaster of SMV Model Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram, informing the 4th respondent that permission has been granted to Kalanilayam Drama Vision, Kodungalloor to conduct a Drama Festival in the school grounds during the period from 15-1-2010 to 19-4-2010 subject to various conditions including the condition that the applicant will be liable to make good the damage, if any, caused to the school grounds or any other property of the school. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the first respondent is not competent to grant permission as given in Ext.P3, that the permission granted is in violation of Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and that the permission granted in to Kalanilayam Drama Vision is not for educational purpose and therefore, for that reason also, Ext.P3 is bad in law. 2. The petitioner states that he was a student of SMV Model High School, which was upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the year 1990, that the school did not have a play ground and therefore, the pond lying adjacent to the school, approximately 2.50 acres in extent, was reclaimed and converted into a play ground for the school, that it is bounded on all four sides by a compound wall, that except during the rainy season the play ground is used from 5.30 a.m. till 8.30 a.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. on all working days, that during the summer vacation coaching camps are conducted for cricket, football and handball, that Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act forbids use of school grounds for any purpose other than educational purpose and therefore, the permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction to the Kalanilayam Drama Vision to hold the Drama Festival is illegal. The petitioner also relies on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam, 2002(2) KLT 502 , and Ext.P1 government order issued pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam, (supra) whereby the Government directed implementation of the directions issued by this Court to keep the premises of educational institutions neat, pure and holy, protecting them from commercial invasions and also to ensure that the premises of educational institutions are not made use for any purpose other than educational purpose. He also relies on Ext.P2 circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction wherein referring to Ext.P1 government order, the Director of Public Instruction has called upon authorities of educational institutions not to let out school buildings and premises for any purpose other than educational purpose. 3. A counter affidavit dated 10-3-2010 has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, the Director of Public Instruction. It is stated that the Managing Director of Kalanilayam Drama Vision, Kodungalloor had submitted an application dated 10.12.2009 for permission to conduct a Drama Festival in the school grounds during the period from 15-1-2010 to 19-4-2010 and that based on the joint report submitted by the Headmaster of the school and the President of the Parent Teacher Association, the said application was considered and permission granted to conduct the Drama Festival subject to the condition that the damage, if any, caused to the ground should be set right by the applicant at his own cost. It is further stated that based on Ext.P3 letter sent by the Director of Public Instruction, the Headmaster of the school granted permission on 31.12.2009 to the Managing Director of the Kalanilayam Drama Vision to use the school grounds for the Drama Festival from 15.1.2010 to 19.4.2010 after executing an agreement, that pursuant thereto an agreement was executed by the applicant whereby the applicant had agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/- per day to the Parent Teacher Association and had also undertaken to rectify the damage, if any, caused to the grounds. 5,000/- per day to the Parent Teacher Association and had also undertaken to rectify the damage, if any, caused to the grounds. It is also stated that the proposed Drama Festival is a cultural programme and therefore, it cannot be considered to be for a purpose other than educational purpose, that the school ground is not part of the school compound and is situated about 500 metres away from the school, that no part of the school campus/school compound has been allowed to be used for the Drama Festival and that the permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction will not affect the normal functioning of the school. The first respondent has also stated that Smt. K.G. Devaki Amma, w/o. Kalanilayam Krishnan Nair, who is the founder of Kalanilayam Natakavedi, had sent Ext.R1(a) letter dated 21-1-2010 to the Headmaster of the School objecting to the permission granted to the Managing Director of the Kalanilayam Drama Vision, Kodungallur to stage the Drama Festival in the school grounds. It is also stated that one Sri. R. Rohit had filed Complaint No.220/2010 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta challenging the permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction and that the Lok Ayukta declined to pass an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P3 permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction by Ext.R1(c) order passed on 11-2-2010.The counter affidavit proceeds to state that the Managing Director of Kalanilayam Drama Vision has agreed to grant concession to the students of the School on the last day of the Drama Festival to watch the drama. 4. We heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. K. Meera, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction to the Managing Director of Kalanilayam Drama Vision to stage a Drama Festival in the play grounds of SMV Model Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram, offends the stipulations in Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act and Ext.P1 government order. Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act reads as follows:- "5B. Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act reads as follows:- "5B. Restriction on alienation of property of Government Schools:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any decree, judgment or order of any court, no sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge or transfer of possession of any land appurtenant to a Government School vested with a local authority under section 5A shall be made and such land shall not be used for any purpose other than educational purposes: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall prohibit surrender of any such land with the permission of the Government for the purpose of widening of any road" Section 5B states in categorical terms that no land appurtenant to a Government School vested with a local authority under Section 5A of the Kerala Education Act shall be used for any purpose other than educational purposes. There is also a restriction on transfer of possession of any such land by sale, mortgage, lease or pledge or the creation of a charge thereon. Section 6(1) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, which deals with properties of aided schools, reads as follows:- "6. Restriction on alienation of property of aided school:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, no sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided school shall be created or made except with the previous permission in writing of such officer not below the rank of a District Educational Officer, as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. The officer shall grant such permission applied for unless the grant of such permission will, in his opinion, adversely affect the working of the school." The effect of Sections 5B and 6 of the Kerala Education Act was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. The Secretary, Corporation of Kollam, 2002(2) KLT 502 . In that case the Parent Teacher Association of a Government Girls' High School permitted a private advertising agency to install hoardings in the premises of the school on payment of a fee. The Corporation of Kollam granted permission for installing the hoardings. The hoardings were accordingly erected. The District Educational Officer directed the Headmaster of the School to remove the hoardings from the school compound. The Corporation of Kollam granted permission for installing the hoardings. The hoardings were accordingly erected. The District Educational Officer directed the Headmaster of the School to remove the hoardings from the school compound. Thereupon the Headmaster of the school prayed for police assistance to remove the hoardings. It was in the background of the above facts that the learned single Judge in Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) held that the environment of the school should be kept clean and tidy as otherwise it will have an adverse effect on the students. It was held that the premises of temples of learning should be kept clean and pure and protected from commercial invasions. Referring to Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act it was held that permission to exhibit an advertisement hoarding in the premises of the school creates a charge on the property of the school and therefore without the prior permission of the Educational Officer, such hoardings should not be permitted to be erected. This Court also directed that while considering requests for placing hoardings in school premises, the Educational Officer should consider whether it would in any way affect the interests of the children and whether the same would serve educational purposes. This Court accordingly directed the Government to issue instructions to the local authorities in the matter of placing advertisement hoardings in the premises of educational institutions. In our opinion this Court in the above mentioned judgment only held that use of the premises of educational institutions for purposes purely commercial that are likely to disturb the serenity of the campus should not be permitted. The Government was also directed to strictly enforce Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act and to ensure that premises of schools are not used for any purpose other than educational purposes. It was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the Government issued Ext.P1 order. 5. The School in question is a Government School. The School ground is situated away from the school campus and it is bounded on all four sides by a compound wall. These facts are not in dispute. It was pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the Government issued Ext.P1 order. 5. The School in question is a Government School. The School ground is situated away from the school campus and it is bounded on all four sides by a compound wall. These facts are not in dispute. The petitioner objects to the Kalanilayam Drama Vision conducting a Drama Festival in the school grounds mainly on the ground that the permission is one issued in violation of Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act and Ext.P1 government order which, as noticed earlier, was issued based on the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan's case (supra). Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act does not in our opinion prohibit the use of land appurtenant to a Government School for any purpose whatsoever. The restriction is that such land shall not be used for any purpose other than educational purposes. We also notice that the decision of the learned single Judge in Gopalakrishnan's case (supra) was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Kamaladevi v. Gopalakrishnan, 2006 (1) KLT 315 . Rule 15 of Chapter IV of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates the purpose for which school buildings or play grounds or vacant sites belonging to the institution, whether adjacent to or removed from it, can be put to use.The District Educational Officer in the case of Government school and the Manager in the case of a Private school, is empowered to grant permission on such conditions as he deems fit to impose for the use of such building, or ground or site belonging to the institution for holding public functions arranged by the management or by a department of the State or the Government of India or for any other purpose. It is also stipulated that in doubtful cases the authorities concerned shall obtain the orders of the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore, the Director of Public Instruction is competent to grant permission to use the school grounds for such purposes as he deems fit. Rule 16 of Chapter IV of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates that subject to Rule 15, Government school buildings and properties may be given to private parties for conducting meetings and other functions under the conditions stipulated therein. Rule 16 of Chapter IV of the Kerala Education Rules stipulates that subject to Rule 15, Government school buildings and properties may be given to private parties for conducting meetings and other functions under the conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions stipulated in the said rule is that the person to whom the buildings and properties are given shall give an undertaking in writing, to compensate any loss or damage that may be caused to the buildings or properties while they are with them. In the instant case such a stipulation has been made while granting permission. Then the only question is whether the permission granted by the Director of Public Instruction in the instant case offends Section 5B of the Kerala Education Act. It cannot be disputed that drama is an art form and an aspect of literature. To believe that drama is wholly alien to education is to deny ourselves the pleasure of reading Kalidasa or Shakespeare. Besides undergoing formal education in schools, school going children also participate and compete in performing arts and other cultural events. As a matter of fact, competitions at Educational Sub District, District and State Level competitions are held every year for school going children in performing arts and other cultural events. It cannot therefore be said that the staging of a Drama Festival in the school grounds will not fall within the meaning of the term 'educational purpose'. The petitioner has also no case that the dramas proposed to be staged by the Kalanilayam Drama Vision are objectionable or that if the dramas are staged, it will have an adverse impact on the students. 6. Further, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Director of Public Instruction it is stated that on former occasions also the Department had permitted various other organisations to use the school premises for such similar events. We also notice the plea of the official respondents that there is a dispute between the founder of Kalanilayam Natakavedi and the Managing Director of Kalanilayam Drama Vision, which is presently pending in the Court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam and that the writ petition is one filed at the instance of private individuals to protect private rights. We also notice the plea of the official respondents that there is a dispute between the founder of Kalanilayam Natakavedi and the Managing Director of Kalanilayam Drama Vision, which is presently pending in the Court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam and that the writ petition is one filed at the instance of private individuals to protect private rights. When the writ petition was heard on 17-5-2010 the learned Government Pleader submitted that the school grounds were not used from 15-1-2010 to 19-4-2010 and that the time schedule was later changed at the request of the applicant and that as per the revised schedule, the Drama Festival will come to an end on 23.5.2010. Having regard to the facts stated above we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out warranting interference with Ext.P3. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.