JUDGMENT : P.V. ASHA, J. 1. The writ petition is filed by Koothuparamba Educational Society along with four others, who claim to have been elected to the Managing Committee of the Society. They are challenging Ext.P20 order passed by Government by which the management of the Koothuparamba High school has been entrusted with the District Educational Officer on the ground that the management under the Society cannot legally look after the functioning of the school. 2. Petitioners have stated that the term of the previous Managing Committee expired on 31.12.2018. The Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba had by Ext.P2 order dated 10.12.2018 in O.S. No. 411/2018 appointed one Sri. T. Purushothaman as Advocate Commissioner to conduct and supervise the meeting of the governing body, in connection with the election proposed to be held on 31.12.2018. It is stated that various Original Suits and interlocutory applications were filed before the courts at Koothuparamba, Thalasseri, etc and even before this Court in connection with conduct of the election; the election could be conducted on 28.09.2019 under the supervision of Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff Court Koothuparamba. It is stated that out of the 21 members elected to the managing committee, petitioners 2 to 5 were elected as President, Vice President, Secretary cum Manager and Treasurer respectively. According to them the newly elected managing committee has been functioning since then and there is no order restraining them though O.S. No. 411 of 2018 and O.S. No. 75 of 2019 filed before the election are pending before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. As per the byelaws the Secretary is to be the Manager; but the request for approval of the Secretary to function as the Manager was declined as per Ext.P16 order of the DEO in the light of Ext.P11 order dated 26.09.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 25784/2019 filed by the additional 3rd respondent. As per that order this Court while allowing the election to go on, had directed that the Manager shall not be approved without permission from this Court and the DEO shall continue to function as the Manager until further orders. The said Writ Petition was closed as per Ext.P21 judgment dated 13.02.2020, taking note of Ext.P20 order and giving liberty to the 1st petitioner herein who was the 5th respondent therein to work out its remedies. The said Writ Petition was closed as per Ext.P21 judgment dated 13.02.2020, taking note of Ext.P20 order and giving liberty to the 1st petitioner herein who was the 5th respondent therein to work out its remedies. Petitioners submit that there is no order from any court restraining their functioning based on the election held on 28.09.2019 and the Advocate Commissioner had filed Ext.P13 and Ext.P14 final report dated 30.11.2019 before the Munsiff Court Koothuparamba. According to them when a newly elected committee is in power there is no reason for entrusting the management of the School with the DEO and Ext.P20 order is liable to set aside. 3. Government has issued Ext.P20 order pursuant to Ext.P9 complaint submitted by the additional 3rd respondent who raised various allegations against Sri. R.K. Raghavan, who had been functioning as the Secretary of Koothuparamba Educational Society and Manager of the School since the year 2000. Additional 3rd respondent approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 11217/2018 and as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 13.09.2018, this Court had directed the Government to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P20 order was passed after hearing the additional 3rd respondent and after calling for report from the Educational Authorities. 4. In Ext.P20, the Government has stated that pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment the additional 3rd respondent who was the petitioner therein, respondents 4 to 6 therein and representatives of the Director of General Education and that of DEO, Koothuparamba were heard on 01.12.2018. Thereafter a comprehensive report in the matter was called for from the Director of General Education. It was stated that as per the report of the Director, the Secretary of Koothuparamba Educational Society is to be the Manager of the school as per the byelaw; Sri. R.K. Raghavan who was elected as the Secretary of the Society has been functioning as the Manager of the School since 01.01.2000 for about 19 years, whereas the term of the Secretary, as per the byelaw is only three years; byelaw was amended during his tenure extending the term of Secretary initially to 5 years and thereafter to 7 years and would have got extension of approval as Manager also; Sri. Raghavan might have influenced the District Registrar and officers of the Education Department; all the files relating to the approval granted for amended byelaws or extension of approval could not be traced out from the offices of the Deputy Director, Kannur or DEO, Koothuparamba the additional 3rd respondent has alleged malpractices and manipulations committed by Sri. Raghavan in connection with the election, amendment of byelaw and the accounts, etc. the list of office bearers are not filed before the District Registrar properly and therefore an enquiry through Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has to be conducted; Sri. Raghavan did not take any steps to convene the annual general body meetings. It was stated that Reghavan did not attend or cooperate with the enquiry conducted on 29.10.2019 at Koothuparamba School on the ground that he ceased to be a Manager. It was stated that in his place Sri. Balan Master has been elected as the Secretary on 28.09.2019, though he is not granted approval as Manager. It was stated that the enquiry team came to know that some portion of the properties of the Society is in possession of strangers; but even on receipt of complaints Sri. Raghavan who was the Manager or Sri. Balan Master who was the President did not take any action to protect the property of the society. It was stated that there are 3000 children studying in the School and the society which was formed for the benefit of the pupils was not protecting the 33 acres of its property; it was reported that the DEO has to be put in charge of the administration of the school till the society starts functioning properly; assets of the society is to be utilised for the benefit of the students. 5. On the basis of the said report Government found that there is serious lapses in the functioning of the society and in the administration of the school; being a society registered under the Charitable Societies Act and the School is an aided School, it is a public property and therefore Government has a duty to protect its assets. Government ordered proceedings through vigilance/police stating that it involves criminal acts like, corruption, maladministration, etc. Government ordered proceedings through vigilance/police stating that it involves criminal acts like, corruption, maladministration, etc. Government entrusted the District Registrar to take action on the lapses occurred on the part of society, based on the report of the Director; and to take action through Vigilance/Police if necessary; Stating that certain assets of the school were dispossessed, the Deputy Director of Education was directed to take steps for the scrutiny of the necessary records and documents with the help of revenue authorities and to recover the possession of the properties of the school and to submit action taken report. Government found that the existing managing committee of the society would not be able to administer the school in accordance with law and therefore the DEO shall continue to function as the Manager of the School in public interest. 6. The contention of the petitioners is that none of the members of the managing committee of the society was heard before passing Ext.P20 order. All the allegations are against the former Secretary cum Manager. It is also pointed out that Ext.P20 decision is not supported by any of the provisions contained in the Kerala Education Act or Rules. According to the petitioners provisions under section 14(1) or 15 of the Kerala Education Act which permits the Government to take over the School cannot be invoked except in accordance with the procedure therein and such power is not invoked. It is also pointed out that the Manager against whom the complaint was raised was not in office at the relevant time. 7. In the statement filed by the Government it is stated that the additional 3rd respondent who was a member of the society filed W.P. (C) No. 11217/2018 before this Court. Ext.P20 order was passed in compliance with the direction contained in the judgment dated 13.09.2018. It is stated that the allegation in the complaint was that the 5th respondent was managing the Koothuparamba High School in a corruptive manner and was continuing as the Manager through illegal means. It is stated that in that Writ Petition it was also alleged that the 5th respondent had fabricated the records and extended his term in the office unlawfully and he was not maintaining proper accounts of the school or the society and he was reluctant to convene the General Body of the society for many years. It is stated that in that Writ Petition it was also alleged that the 5th respondent had fabricated the records and extended his term in the office unlawfully and he was not maintaining proper accounts of the school or the society and he was reluctant to convene the General Body of the society for many years. It is stated that Government passed the order after hearing the Director of Public Instructions and District Educational Officer, Koothuparamba, the petitioner and the representatives of the respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition filed by additional 3rd respondent. It is stated that based on the facts put forth during the hearing and other reports, Government had issued Ext.P20 order whereby the Government had decided to entrust the management of the school with the District Educational Officer for its administration as an interim arrangement. It is stated that additional 3rd respondent has again submitted representation before the Government with a request to make further detailed enquiries on appointment of the Manager of the School and connected issues. As a follow up measure Government has issued Ext.R1(a) letter instructing the Director of General Education to furnish the action taken report on the basis of the instruction contained in the Government order dated 06.02.2020. It is stated that the Government had issued Ext.R1(b) letter dated 06.07.2020 directing the DEO to carry out essential maintenance work to the school after getting permission from this Court. It is stated that the Government vide U.O. Note dated 24.07.2020 asked the Revenue Department to make a detailed enquiry through District Collector, Kannur and further vide U.O. Note dated 24.07.2020 had asked the Taxes Department to make a detailed enquiry through District Registrar, Kannur in the matter covering all aspects with regard to the society and to furnish a detailed report. It is stated that in such circumstances if any orders are passed by this Court permitting the petitioners to take charge of the affairs of the society and the school that would adversely affect the enquiry which is ordered by the Government. It is stated that all the necessary steps required for reopening can be done by the District Educational Officer and also ensured that the academic function of the school will not be affected due to the present dispute pending before this Court. 8. It is stated that all the necessary steps required for reopening can be done by the District Educational Officer and also ensured that the academic function of the school will not be affected due to the present dispute pending before this Court. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional 3rd respondent it is stated that the election in which petitioners 2 to 5 have claimed to have been elected and taken charge as office bearers of the society is illegal; the term of the governing body was limited to a period of 5 years; election proceedings were initiated to elect governing body members for a term of 7 years. It is stated that the election conducted was for a period of 6 years whereas the term of the governing body as per Ext.R3(a) was only 5 years. It is also stated that additional 3rd respondent has filed O.S. No. 395/2019 challenging the said election and that the same is pending. The 3rd respondent has also explained the Interlocutory Applications filed before the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. It is also stated that as alleged by the petitioners they do not have any authority to run the society. It is also stated that the additional 3rd respondent has filed O.S. No. 108/2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba for declaration that he is entitled to exercise one vote in the election and O.P. (C) No. 1976/2019 was filed before this Court seeking to consider I.A. No. 543/2019 and I.A. No. 544/2019 in O.S. No. 108/2019 along with I.A. No. 16/2019 in O.S. No. 5/2019 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kuthupramba and another OP(C) No. 2093/2019 has been filed for disposal of the IAs filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 5/2019 and O.S. No. 108/2019. It is also stated that O.P. (C) No. 1976/2019 was closed as infructuous and O.P. (C) No. 2093/2019 was withdrawn. The 3rd respondent has also stated that C.M.A. No. 14/2019 was filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2019 in I.A. No. 16/2019 and I.A. 17/2019 in O.S. No. 5/2019 which was dismissed as per judgment dated 19.09.2019. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that as per Rule 3 of Chapter III of KER, management of a school is bound by the actions of the Manager. The additional 3rd respondent has further stated that Sri. R.K. Raghavan has put in office beyond the term of the governing body. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that as per Rule 3 of Chapter III of KER, management of a school is bound by the actions of the Manager. The additional 3rd respondent has further stated that Sri. R.K. Raghavan has put in office beyond the term of the governing body. Sri. Raghavan continued as the Manager of the school illegally and misappropriated huge amount. Many properties of the school were lost due to his mismanagement the 3rd respondent had produced Ext.R3(i) hearing note before the Government along with the relevant documents in respect of it. It is also stated that in W.P. (C) No. 42659/2019, the District Registrar (General), Kannur has filed statement before this court stating that the petitioner society has not furnished list of governing body members and therefore application for amendment of bylaw was not available and therefore the amendment is inoperative. The 3rd respondent has pointed out that various irregularities were committed in the functioning of the society. According to the 3rd respondent previous Manager has already sold two buses for lacks of rupees illegally and therefore it is not safe to permit the petitioners to manage the school and handing over the school by petitioners will result alienation of school properties and misappropriation of the funds of the school. 9. Heard Sri. Asif Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned Counsel for the additional 3rd respondent and Sri. Aravind Kumar Babu, learned Government Pleader. 10. On consideration of the contentions, it is seen that petitioners 2 to 5 were not given any opportunity of hearing before Ext.P20 order was passed. The 2nd respondent has in his report stated that the election was conducted on 02.09.2019 and the former Manager against whom the complaint was made ceased to be in office. There is no order interdicting the functioning of the managing committee of the society. The only order was against approval of Manager, which is not in force as at present. The School is run by the society. Therefore Ext.P20 order without hearing the petitioners is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. If at all any assets are seen dispossessed or alienated a decision ought to have been taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to those who are in power. The School is run by the society. Therefore Ext.P20 order without hearing the petitioners is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. If at all any assets are seen dispossessed or alienated a decision ought to have been taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to those who are in power. There cannot be any doubt over the fact that the society as well as the Manager are supposed to protect the assets and not utilised for personal gains. 12. Ext.P20 order does not state under which provision it is issued. However while allowing the DEO to continue in office public interest is vitiated. But it is seen that such a conclusion is arrived at, behind the back of those who are managing the society. 13. Ext.P20 is not preceded by any show cause notice either to the Manager or to the educational agency, for taking over the School or even for proceeding against the Manager for any action under Section 7 or in Chapter III for any of the duties he failed to perform. The provision dealing with taking over of the management is under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, which reads as follows: “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. (2) In cases of emergency, where the Government are satisfied that such a course is necessary in the interests of the pupils of the school, they may, without any notice under sub-section (1) to the Manager or the educational agency, take over the management of any school after the publication of a notification to that effect in the Gazette. (2) In cases of emergency, where the Government are satisfied that such a course is necessary in the interests of the pupils of the school, they may, without any notice under sub-section (1) to the Manager or the educational agency, take over the management of any school after the publication of a notification to that effect in the Gazette. (3) Where any school has been taken over under sub-section (2) the educational agency or the Manager of the school within three months of the publication of the notification under the said sub-section, may apply to the Government for the restoration of the school showing the cause therefor and where the Government are satisfied of the cause so shown, they shall restore the school. (4) The Government may also make such further orders as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient in connection with the taking over of the management of any aided school under this section. (5) Where any school is taken over under this section, the Government shall pay to the person or persons interested such rent as may be fixed by the Collector, having regard to the rates of rent prevailing in the locality for similar properties. Provided that where any property has been acquired, constructed, improved or maintained for the purposes of the school with the aid given or by appropriation or diversion of any grant made by the Government the rent shall be fixed by the Collector after taking into account the amount of such aid or grant. (6) Where any school is taken over under this Section, the Government may run the school affording any special educational facilities which the school was affording immediately before such taking over. (7) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector fixing the rent under sub-section (5) may, in the prescribed manner appeal to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the school is situated within sixty days from the date of the order and the decision of the Judge shall be final. (8) It shall also be lawful for the Government to acquire the school taken over under this section, if they are satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest in which case compensation shall be payable in accordance with the principles laid down in S. 15 for payment of compensation. (8) It shall also be lawful for the Government to acquire the school taken over under this section, if they are satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest in which case compensation shall be payable in accordance with the principles laid down in S. 15 for payment of compensation. (9) Nothing in this section shall apply to minority schools.” No provision is seen in Section 14 for an interim arrangement pending action under Section 14. 14. As pointed by Sri. Asif Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in Abdurahiman vs. State, 1978 KLT 275 : 1978 KHC 68, Subramanian vs. State of Kerala and Others, 1986 KLT 359 : 1986 KHC 95, Parent Teacher Association vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (1) KLT 804 : 2000 KHC 156, in order to invoke section 14 of the Act and take over the management of an aided school, public interest alone is not enough. Neglect on the part of the Manager to perform any of the duties under the Act or the KER is also necessary and any such action shall precede with a show cause notice specifically stating the reasons for invoking Section 14 of the Act. It is also held that Section 14 has to be invoked only in cases where action under other provisions are not sufficient. In this case no such show cause notice is seen to have been issued. There is no gazette publication also, if it was a matter of emergency. 15. The allegation raised by the additional 3rd respondent relating to the election or the amendment of bye-laws or relating to the accounts of the society are matters for adjudication by a civil court. 16. Therefore, I find that the provisions under the KER do not support an order like Ext.P20. Section 14 of the KER does not provide for entrusting the school to the DEO pending an investigation as stated in Ext.P20. Of course it would be necessary to take all measures to protect the assets of the Society and the school, in accordance with rules, in case those in power, who are duty bound to protect the same are unable to do the same. 17. In the above circumstances, Ext.P20 shall stand set aside. It will be open to the petitioners to approach the educational authorities for approval. 17. In the above circumstances, Ext.P20 shall stand set aside. It will be open to the petitioners to approach the educational authorities for approval. In that event the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on the request made by the 4th petitioner or first petitioner society. This judgment will not stand in the way of the Government in taking any action in accordance with law. This will also not in any manner affect the adjudication of the civil suits.