JUDGMENT : (Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.) The issues involved in both these writ petitions pertain to the right of the Manager of the aided school to close down the school. In WP(C)No.23704/2015, the petitioner therein, who is the Manager of two aided schools, is challenging the orders passed by the Government and the Educational authorities, declining the permission to close down her schools. The permission was declined by mainly placing reliance upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTE Act'). 2. In WP(C) No.7407/2012, the petitioners are the Presidents of the Parent Teachers Association of the schools of the petitioner in WP(C) No.23704/2015. In the said Writ Petition, they are challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, in the light of the introduction of Art.21A of the Constitution of India, which made the right to education as a fundamental right as far as the children belonging to the age group of 6 to 14 years are concerned. (The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their respective ranks in WP(C) No.23704/2015, and the Exhibits are also referred to in the sequence as mentioned in the said writ petition) 3. The basic facts that are necessary to consider in the aforesaid questions are as follows: The petitioner in WP(C)No.23704/2015 is the manager of two aided schools, viz. Aided Junior Basic School (AJB School), L.N.Puram, Palakkad and C.M.M. Aided Junior Basic School, Murukani, Palakkad. The aforesaid schools, along with another school named PAAMM U.P. School, Kallepully, were under the management of Smt. Vijayakumari, the mother of the petitioner. In the year 2003, the said Vijayakumari transferred the two schools referred to above to the petitioner and such transfer was affected after obtaining all approvals in this regard by the Educational authorities. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, including the decrease in the number of students, it is not feasible to conduct the said schools and therefore, Ext.P1 notice was issued by the petitioner on 2.2.2009 to the Educational authorities intimating her intention to close down the said schools with effect from the academic year 2010-2011. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, including the decrease in the number of students, it is not feasible to conduct the said schools and therefore, Ext.P1 notice was issued by the petitioner on 2.2.2009 to the Educational authorities intimating her intention to close down the said schools with effect from the academic year 2010-2011. The said notice was issued in the light of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act which provides for a notice of one year expiring with 31st May of any year. 4. However, as per Ext.P2, the Additional Director of General Education conveyed to the petitioner that she has to continue the functioning of the school for the time being as they have recommended to the Government to take over the schools and unless a final decision is taken by the Government, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. Exhibit P2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(C)No.13247/2010 before this Court. The Parent Teachers Association have also filed another writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. The said writ petitions culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, directing the Government to pass appropriate orders. Exhibit P4 is the Government Order passed in compliance with the Ext.P3 judgment wherein, the Government directed the Educational authorities to maintain the status quo regarding the management of the schools till 31.03.2012. The request for closing down the schools was rejected, and it was also informed that the decision regarding the closing down or take over of the schools would be taken after looking at the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, before the next academic year. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WP(C) No.5210/2012 by highlighting the right of the Manager to close down the school in light of the various decisions rendered by this Court in this regard. The said writ petition was referred to a Full Bench of this Court, and ultimately, it culminated in Ext.P5 judgment wherein, the Government was directed to take a final decision in the matter by taking note of the impact of the enactment of the Right of Education Act as well. In the said decision, all the contentions of the parties were left open. 5. In the said decision, all the contentions of the parties were left open. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P7 Government order was passed wherein, the permission to close down the schools was declined on the reason that the closing down of the said schools would adversely affect the interests of school children residing in the area and also to ensure the educational needs as per Right to Education Act. WP(C)No.23704/2015 was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 Government Order. 6. WP(C)No.7407/2012 was filed by the Presidents of the Parent Teacher Associations of PAAMM UP School AJB school, L.N. Puram, Palakkad and CMM AJB School, Murukani. They are opposing the prayers of the managers of the schools, including the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23704/2015 to close down the schools. They are also challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, as according to them, the said provision is contrary to the fundamental rights of the students enshrined under Art.21A of the Constitution of India and also against the stipulations contained in the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. In WP(C) No.23704/2015, a statement has been submitted by the Government wherein, it is averred that, the Government does not intend to take over the petitioner's schools and the policy of the Government is to continue the schools as aided, since the schools are now functioning smoothly and have the students and teachers. The said statement is dated 4.8.2023. Subsequently, on 13.03.2024, the Government filed a memo along with a report dated 22.2.2024 of the A.E.O, Palakkad which was prepared after conducting an inspection in the schools of the petitioner. As per the said report, in AJB School, L.N. Puram, only 12 students were studying during the academic year 2023-24, whereas the number of students in CMM AJB School, Murukani, was only 5. The details of the schools within the range of two kilometres of the said schools were also shown. 8. The issues involved in these writ petitions are to be considered in the light of the above factual background. 9. Heard Sri. U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)No.23704/2015, Sri. K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.7407/2012 and Smt. K.G.Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader for the State. 10. 8. The issues involved in these writ petitions are to be considered in the light of the above factual background. 9. Heard Sri. U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)No.23704/2015, Sri. K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.7407/2012 and Smt. K.G.Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader for the State. 10. The main contention put forward by Sri U Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner (petitioner in WP(C)No.23704/2015), is that, as far as the right of the Manager of an aided school to close down the school is concerned, the said issue is well settled in the light of various decisions such as Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Ors. [ 1986 KLT 359 ], Balakrishnan v. Ramesan [1993(1)KLT 519], Gopinathan v. State of Kerala [2001(3)KLT 472], Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala and Others [ 1972 KLT 496 ], State of Kerala and Ors. v. N.K.Krishnankutty Nair [2015(1)KLT 392], State of Kerala and Ors. v. Manager, Aided Upper Primary school, Kozhikode [2016(2)KHC 629] and Ext.P8 judgment in WP(C)No.12873/2015. 11. According to him, the observations in the judgments above clearly indicate that, this Court is taking a consistent view in the matter by upholding the right of the manager to close down the school after giving notice as contemplated under Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and it was repeatedly held that the same can be done without the permission of the Government. It was also pointed out that, in some of the decisions referred to above, the legal position with regard to the right of the manager, even after enactment of the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder, was considered and found that the same will not affect such right. It was also pointed out that Rule 6(10) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, which provided for permission of the Assistant Education Officer to close down the school, was held to be ultra vires of the RTE Act. 12. It was also pointed out that Rule 6(10) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, which provided for permission of the Assistant Education Officer to close down the school, was held to be ultra vires of the RTE Act. 12. Sri.K.C.Eldho, the learned counsel appearing for the Parent Teachers Associations of the schools, contended that, Section 7(6) cannot be put into operation by granting absolute right to the Manager to close down the schools, as the same violates the rights of the children to have access to education in the nearby schools, which is protected as per the constitutional mandate contained in Art.21A of Constitution of India R/w the provisions in the RTE Act and the rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel also relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [ AIR 1993 SC 2178 ], Society for unaided private schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Ors [ 2012 (6) SCC 1 ). Suo motu proceedings in WP(C) No.18810/2013 (ILR 2014 (2) Ker.740). It was contended that an absolute right of the manager to close down the school is not in tune with the spirit of Art.21A of the Constitution of India. 13. For considering the issue regarding the right of the manager to close down the school, a reference to various decisions rendered by this Court is necessary. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the decisions in Subramaniam, Balakrishnan, Krishnakumar, and Gopinathan, which are referred to above, it was consistently held by this Court that, the Manager has the right to close down the school by fulfilling the conditions in Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and no permission from the Government is required. It is to be noted in this regard that, Section 7(6) provides that “No manager shall close down any school unless one year's notice, expiring with the 31st May of any year, of his intentions so to do, has been given to the officer authorized by the government in this behalf.” 14. In Krishnakumar's case (supra), this Court considered the legal validity of Rule 24 to Chapter V of KER, which provided for the necessity of permission from educational authorities for the closure of the school. In Krishnakumar's case (supra), this Court considered the legal validity of Rule 24 to Chapter V of KER, which provided for the necessity of permission from educational authorities for the closure of the school. It was held that, the said rule is ultra vires of the Kerala Education Act and therefore not enforceable. It was found that, the said rule is beyond the rule making power contemplated under the Kerala Education Act and is inconsistent with the stipulations in Section 7(6). In N.K.Krishnankutty Nair's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court, reconsidered the said question in the light of the enactment of the RTE Act and the Rules. In the said decision, the Full Bench found that the position of law noted in the aforesaid decisions is correct and does not call for any variation. The relevant observations in this regard are as follows: “7. The provisions of the FCE Act and the FCE Rules having come into force, it is essentially within the domain of the competent authority, in terms of those legislative provisions, to take stock of any situation of conflict with those provisions, as regards any particular school or management. The field of elementary education being subject to the FCE Act and the FCE Rules framed under that Act, the conclusions rendered above as to the correctness of the precedent law in the aforenoted judgments of this Court do not preclude the competent authority under the FCE Act and FCE Rules issued thereunder, to consider any issue which would fall within the domain of that Act and those Rules. 8. The question posed for consideration in the reference order does not generate any view which would contradict the conclusions arrived at in the precedents noted above, merely on the basis of the coming into force of the FCE Act and the FCE Rules thereunder. This is so, also because the consideration in the earlier judgments were only in relation to issues under the KE Act and KER. The correctness of those judgments do not depend upon the impact of the FCE Act and the FCE Rules. The impact of both sets of primary and subsidiary legislations; namely, KE Act, KER, FCE Act and FCE Rules; would have to be taken care of by the competent authorities while deciding on individual cases. 9. The correctness of those judgments do not depend upon the impact of the FCE Act and the FCE Rules. The impact of both sets of primary and subsidiary legislations; namely, KE Act, KER, FCE Act and FCE Rules; would have to be taken care of by the competent authorities while deciding on individual cases. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that no interference is called for with the judgment under appeal in these writ appeals, and the competent authority will be at liberty to take such action as may be called for on any request of the parties, or even otherwise. This shall be strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.” 15. However, in the said decision, it was observed that the impact of both sets of primary and subsidiary legislations would have to be taken care of by the competent authorities while deciding individual cases. 16. Again, the same question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Kozhikode (supra). In the said decision, while reiterating the legal position as to the right of the manager to close down the school even after the enactment of the RTE Act, this Court proceeded to hold that Rule 6(10) of RTE Rules framed by the Kerala Government which provided for prior permission from the educational authorities to close down the school is ultra vires of the RTE Act. The relevant observations in this regard are in para. 24 and 25 of the said decision, which reads as follows: “24. Insofar as R.6(10) of the Kerala Rules, 2011 is concerned, it is true that under this Rule, no school shall be closed down without the recommendation of the AEO or local authority and prior sanction of the government. As we have already stated, there is no provision in the RTE Act dealing with the closure of the schools to which the Act is applicable. Rules framed by the Government are in exercise of its powers under S.38 of the Act. S.38(1) provides that the appropriate government may, by notification, make rules "for carrying out the provisions of this Act". Subjects on which the rules can be framed are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (r) of S.38(2). Rules framed by the Government are in exercise of its powers under S.38 of the Act. S.38(1) provides that the appropriate government may, by notification, make rules "for carrying out the provisions of this Act". Subjects on which the rules can be framed are enumerated in Clauses (a) to (r) of S.38(2). Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in S.38(1), only for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and not even for the purposes of the Act, can rules be framed. Law is settled that rules can be framed only on matters covered by the parent Act. This therefore means that the provisions in R.6(10) providing that no school shall be closed down without the recommendation of the AEO and the local authority and sanction of the Government are beyond the scope of the rule making authority of the Government. 25. Even otherwise, the Kerala Rules, 2011 is only a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation, it is trite, can be framed only within the four corners of the parent Act under which the same is made. Or else, it will be ultra vires the parent Act. As we have stated, R.6(10) has travelled beyond the scope of the parent Act and therefore, is ultra vires. In that view of the matter, we cannot recognise the requirements of R.6(10) and place restrictions on the Manager's rights recognised under the provisions of the KE Act, enabling them to close down the school on satisfying the conditions specified in S.7(6) and the provisions of Chapter V R.24.” 17. In WP(C)No.7407/2012, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of section 7(6) of the Kerala Educational Act as, according to the petitioners therein, the same is in conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.21A of the Constitution of India r/w. the provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Of course, it is true that, evidently, in the decisions referred to above, there was no challenge against the provisions of Section 7(6). Even though the writ petitions which culminated in Ext.P3, there was a challenge in this regard, the same was not considered and it was kept open. 18. After carefully going through Art.21A and the provisions in the RTE Act or the Rules framed thereunder, I am unable to find any conflict between Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and the provisions referred to above. 18. After carefully going through Art.21A and the provisions in the RTE Act or the Rules framed thereunder, I am unable to find any conflict between Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and the provisions referred to above. It is to be noted in this regard that, as far as Article 21A of the Constitution of India is concerned, unlike in the other Articles, while making the right to education as a fundamental right for the persons concerned (children between the age group of 6 years to 14 years), an obligation is conferred upon the State Government to provide free and compulsory education to all children age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. Thus, while making the right to education a fundamental right, the constitutional provision imposes a duty upon the State to enforce the said right by enacting laws in this regard, providing for the manner in which the said rights are to be made available to the persons concerned. Therefore, to enforce the right under Art.21A, essentially, there must be an enactment providing for the manner in which such rights are to be enforced, which is the constitutional obligation of the State. In fulfilment of the said obligation, the Central Government enacted the RTE Act, in which Chapter II contemplated the manner in which the right to free and compulsory education should be provided to the beneficiaries. Chapter III of the RTE Act provides for the duties of the appropriate Government, location authority and parents. Section 6 contemplates that, for carrying out the provisions of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of the Act. Section 18 provides the manner in which the schools have to function, and the recognition of the schools is to be granted for ensuring compliance with the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 19. The crucial aspect to be noted in this regard is that, none of the provisions contained therein deals with the closure of an aided school. Section 18 provides the manner in which the schools have to function, and the recognition of the schools is to be granted for ensuring compliance with the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 19. The crucial aspect to be noted in this regard is that, none of the provisions contained therein deals with the closure of an aided school. Of course, it is true that when the State Government introduced RTE Rules 2011, Rule 6(10) therein provided that no school shall be closed down without the recommendation of the Assistant Education Officer and the local authority and prior sanction from the Government. However, in Manager, aided upper Primary school's case (supra), this Court found that the said provision is beyond the rule-making power of the State Government and therefore held to be ultra vires of the Act. Thus, as of now, there is no provision in the RTE Act or the regulations framed thereunder restricting the right of the manager to close down the school, as contemplated under section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. Therefore, the provisions contained in the RTE Act and the rules framed thereunder, which were enacted in fulfilment of the obligation of the State under Art.21A of the Constitution of India, cannot be treated as a provision, in conflict with the stipulation in Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. Therefore, the challenge raised by the Parent Teachers Association against the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) is not legally sustainable. 20. While taking the said view, I am conscious of the fact that, as per provisions in the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder, there is an obligation on the part of the Government to ensure that, there are schools available for elementary education to the students within the age group of 6 to 14 years within the distance prescribed. However, merely because of the existence of such provisions, Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act cannot be said to be ultra vires. This is particularly because Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act provides for taking over the management of the school in certain circumstances where the manager of an aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder and in the public interest. This is particularly because Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act provides for taking over the management of the school in certain circumstances where the manager of an aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder and in the public interest. Nothing would preclude the Government from exercising the said powers even if the manager invoked the option provided under section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, thereby fulfilling the obligation cast upon them as per the Constitutional mandate vide Article 21A. 21. Besides, a careful scrutiny of Art.21A of the Constitution of India would indicate that the said provision contemplates an obligation or duty upon the State to make laws to ensure the right of education to children belonging to the age group of 6 to 14 years. Thus, it is the obligation of the State to provide for the laws in this regard. Even though the RTE Act was introduced in fulfilment of the aforesaid obligation, the provision regarding the manner in which the school could be closed, is conspicuously absent therein. Considering the fact that, the conduct of an aided school is by the funds available by the State, and since the State is under an obligation to provide for educational facilities within the limits prescribed as per the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it was essential that, some provisions regulating the absolute powers of the manager, are provided in any of the enactments i.e., in the RTE Act or the Kerala Education Act. However, since there is no such law in force governing the said situation, as of now, nothing would preclude the manager of an aided school from exercising the right contemplated under Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. It is to be noted in this regard that such a right is already upheld by this Court in various decisions referred to above, even in respect of the situations after enactment of the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In such circumstances, I do not find any scope in granting the reliefs, as sought by the petitioners in WP(C)No.7407/2012. 22. When coming to the reliefs sought in WP(C)No.23704/2015, the factual circumstances as now in existence are in favour of the petitioner therein. In such circumstances, I do not find any scope in granting the reliefs, as sought by the petitioners in WP(C)No.7407/2012. 22. When coming to the reliefs sought in WP(C)No.23704/2015, the factual circumstances as now in existence are in favour of the petitioner therein. As mentioned above, the Exhibit P14 and P15 staff fixation orders for the years 2022-2023 would indicate that the total number of students in AJB School L.N.Puram is 15, whereas the number of students in CMM AJBS Murukani is only 6. The inspection report dated 22.02.2024 of the Assistant Education Officer would indicate that the number of students in the said schools for the academic year 2023-2024 was 12 and 5, respectively. In addition to that, in the statement submitted by the Government in WP(C) No.23704/2015, it has been specifically averred that the Government has no intention to take over the said schools. Besides, in the said statements, the details of the schools within two kilometres of the said schools are also specified. Therefore, it is evident that the functioning of the school is not at all beneficial or feasible as well. Therefore, for that reason also, the reliefs sought by the petitioners in WP(C)No.23704/2015 are to be allowed. 23. Of course, it is true that the petitioners in WP(C)No.7407/2012 have raised various contentions by highlighting the incidents regarding the neglect shown by the petitioner in WP(C)No.23704/2015 in managing the school. It was also highlighted that, on some occasions, funds were generated by the Parent Teacher Association for proper maintenance of the school. However, all those incidents were prior to 2012, and we are now in 2024. The present situation, as revealed from the Exts.P14 and P15 and the report dated 22.2.2024 of the A.E.O., indicates that the number of the students in the said schools are negligible and, therefore, the running the said school is not at all feasible. Moreover, the reasons mentioned by the Government in Ext.P7 order that the functioning of the schools in the said locality is absolutely necessary, also cannot be treated as a valid reason as of now, considering the minimal number of students in the school. Moreover, the reasons mentioned by the Government in Ext.P7 order that the functioning of the schools in the said locality is absolutely necessary, also cannot be treated as a valid reason as of now, considering the minimal number of students in the school. Moreover, as the number of students is negligible, the purpose and obligation contemplated under various provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules framed thereunder also do not have much significance, as the figures of the student strength indicate that the local people are not opting for the said school. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification for sustaining the Ext.P7 order passed by the Government. 24. Another important aspect to be noticed is that the RTE Act was brought into force on 01.04.2010, and the rules were brought into force on 06.05.2011. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 notice for closure of the school on 2-2-2009, which was prior to the enactment of the Act and Rules. Therefore, the said application should have been considered without any reference to the RTE Act. 25. However, before concluding, one aspect is to be highlighted. As per the provisions now in existence and declared by this court in various decisions referred to above, the manager has a right to close down the school by complying with the procedure contemplated under section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, for which the permission of the Government is not required. Even though some restrictions were proposed as per Rule 24 Chapter V of KER and Rule 10 of the RTE Rules by the State Government, the same were held to be ultra vires of the respective Acts. However, the question to be considered in this regard is whether the State is under an obligation to bring in restrictions on such power by making necessary provisions in this regard. Section 6 of the RTE Act provides as follows: “Duty of appropriate Government and local authority to establish school.-- For carrying out the provisions of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish, within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act.” 26. The State Government formulated the RTE Rules, 2011, wherein Rule 6(1) reads as follows: “6. The State Government formulated the RTE Rules, 2011, wherein Rule 6(1) reads as follows: “6. Area or limits of neighbourhood (1) The area or limits of neighbourhood within which a school has to be established by the state government or the local authority shall be:- (a) in respect of children in classes from 1 to 5, a school shall be established within a walking distance of one km of the neighbourhood: (b) in respect of children in classes from 6 to 8, a school shall be established within a walking distance of three kms of the neighbourhood:” 27. A combined reading of the above provisions would clearly indicate that there is an obligation upon the State to ensure that there are schools within the distance mentioned above. As far as aided schools are concerned, the majority of the expenses of running the same are met by the Government, and therefore, the functioning of aided schools in the area covered by the provisions referred to above could be treated as in fulfilment of the said obligations. Hence, when one of such schools is sought to be closed down by the manager of such school on his own, it may result in non-fulfilment of the said obligations. Therefore, there must be some statutory machinery or mechanism to ensure that such closure does not defeat the purposes of the said provisions, for which the said powers of the manager are to be regulated by law. It is true that, earlier, the rules referred to above were formulated by the State Government to curtail the said powers of the manager, but those rules were declared by this court as invalid due to defects in introducing the said provision. Thus, it is necessary to bring in appropriate provisions that do not suffer from the shortcomings pointed out by this court in the decisions referred to above. Bringing in such provisions is not only the obligation of the State in light of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, but also is absolutely necessary for implementing the provisions in the RTE Act, in letter and spirit. Bringing in such provisions is not only the obligation of the State in light of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, but also is absolutely necessary for implementing the provisions in the RTE Act, in letter and spirit. However, since the legislation is the prerogative of the State, this court does not intend to issue directions in this regard to the respondents, but only wants to highlight the necessity to give attention to these aspects, which is the need of the hour, particularly because, the commercial interests of the private individuals, while acting as the managers of the school, could hamper the noble objects behind the management and functioning of the educational institutions. This court is leaving the said issue with the above observations, hoping that, the 1st respondent would give necessary attention to these aspects. 28. In such circumstances WP(C) No.7407/2012 is dismissed. WP(C) No.23704/2015 is disposed of, quashing Ext.P7 by directing the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that the necessary formalities for closing the schools as sought in Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner be complied with, and the proceedings are completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. While completing the proceedings as mentioned above, the existing students and teaching and non-teaching staff shall be re-admitted and re-deployed within the aforesaid time frame. While re-admitting the students to other schools, it should be ensured that they are provided admission to the nearest schools.