JUDGMENT : GOPINATH P., J. This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025, whereby the learned single Judge rejected the prayer for vacating the interim order dated 4.4.2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025. 2. The Learned Judge, taking into consideration Ext.P9 communication issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, to the Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting that the permission granted by Ext.P8 to use the ground attached to the Thirurangadi, Government Higher Secondary School, for the conduct of a foot ball tournament by the appellant and also taking into account the law laid down by this court in SNDP Yogam Sakha No.982 v. State of Kerala ( 2024 KHC online 262 ) took the view that the application for vacating the said interim order should be rejected. The learned single Judge also observed that it is not clear from a reading of Ext.P8, as to in what manner the conduct of the tournament is beneficial to the students of the school. It is also clear from a reading of the impugned order that the learned single Judge took note of the fact that the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, before this court was contradictory to the stand taken by her in Ext.P9 communication issued to the Director of General Education. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a similar tournament was conducted last year also and the organisers had given substantial amounts to the Parent Teacher Association (for short ‘PTA’) for the development of the school. It is submitted that nearly Rs.11 lakhs were given to the PTA, after the conduct of the tournament last year, and this year also, the organisers have agreed to make a substantial payment for constructing classrooms in the school. It is submitted that the permission granted to the appellant is strictly in conformity with the provisions of Rules 15 and 16 of Chapter IV of the Kerala Education Rules , which indicate that the properties of Government or Aided Schools can be utilised for the purposes indicated, subject to conditions. It is submitted that the judgment of this court in SNDP Yogam Sakha No.982 (supra) relates to the holding of religious functions. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition stating that he is the president of the PTA. It is submitted that the judgment of this court in SNDP Yogam Sakha No.982 (supra) relates to the holding of religious functions. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition stating that he is the president of the PTA. It is submitted that the writ petitioner (1st respondent herein) is not the president of the PTA and has never been, and he now claims that he is the president of a Poura Samity. It is also submitted that the PTA (additional 9th respondent in the writ petition) has no objection as the tournament is being conducted only during the summer recess. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also refers to the affidavit dated 21.04.2025 filed by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, in support of his contention that the use of the school ground is not in violation of the Rules. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Thirurangadi Municipality, the PTA, and the learned Government Pleader also support the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the use of the ground to conduct the tournament is not in violation of the Rules, and if the benefit to the school is ensured, there is nothing wrong in such permission being granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (1st respondent) submits that the impugned order is perfectly legal and sustainable, and no interference is called for at the hands of the Division Bench. It is submitted that none of the communications which are on record in this case, either from the appellant or from the educational authorities, indicate the benefit that may be received by the school from the permission being granted to use the school ground for the conduct of the football tournament. It is submitted that the provisions of Rules 15 and 16 indicate that when school premises are permitted to be used for such purposes, it is necessary that rent be collected at prevailing rates. It is submitted that the organisers are also to undertake that they will make good any damage that is caused to the properties of the school. It is submitted that none of the conditions are satisfied in the permission granted to the appellant to conduct the football tournament. It is also submitted that Ext.P1 circular indicates that no such permission can be granted. It is submitted that none of the conditions are satisfied in the permission granted to the appellant to conduct the football tournament. It is also submitted that Ext.P1 circular indicates that no such permission can be granted. It is also pointed out that Ext.P1 proceeds on the basis of the directions issued by this court in the judgment in Gopalkrishnan v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam ( 2002 KHC 467 ). 7. It is submitted at the bar that an impleading petition has been filed by a parent of a student of the school. It is submitted that yet another writ petition has been filed challenging the decision taken by the educational authorities to permit the use of a school ground. It is submitted that the permission granted for the use of the school ground is not for the benefit of the school or the students, and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned interim order. 8. Learned Government Pleader submits that the rent as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 16 will be fixed and collected from the organisers, and a suitable undertaking that any damage caused to the school premises will be made good by the organisers will also be taken. It is also submitted that a Division bench of this Court had considered an identical issue in State of Kerala and Others v. Abdul Sathar P. and Another ( 2004 KHC 1051 ) and the view taken by this Court in the said judgment shows that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner), the learned counsel appearing for the Thirurangadi Municipality, and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 9th respondent we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to relief. We have also heard the submissions of the learned counsel who states that he has filed an impleading petition on behalf of a parent of a student of the school, though such an application is not yet on record. 10. We have also heard the submissions of the learned counsel who states that he has filed an impleading petition on behalf of a parent of a student of the school, though such an application is not yet on record. 10. Learned single Judge refused to vacate the interim order initially granted in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025 essentially on the ground that the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, had filed an affidavit contradicting the stand taken by her in Ext.P9 communication and also considering the law laid down by this Court in SNDP Yogam Sakha No.982 (supra). We find on a reading of the judgment of this court in SNDP Yogam Sakha No.982 (supra), that the said decision was in relation to the permission sought/given to conduct a religious function on the premises of a school. A government school is a secular institution, and religious functions cannot be conducted on the premises of a Government school. The rules also do not permit the conduct of such functions on school premises. However, the conduct of a football tournament cannot be said to be in violation of Rules 15 and 16 of Chapter 4 of the Kerala Education Rules , as the Rules specifically contemplate that permission can be granted for the conduct of such functions, subject to conditions. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) is right in contending that the benefit that the school may obtain from the conduct of the festival must be clearly specified. 11. A Division Bench of this Court considered an identical question in Abdul Sathar P. (supra). It was held:- “20. In the above circumstances, we proceed to consider the prayer of the first respondent for direction to the appellants to grant permission to conduct the football tournament in the playground und of the G.M.U.P. School, Cherur. The claim of the first respondent that the open space between the buildings of the school was developed as a play-ground by the Diamond Arts and Sports Club, Cherur was not disputed by the appellants or the second respondent. The averments in Para. 1 and 2 of the writ petition regarding the services rendered by the Club to the school have not been controverted by the appellants. The averments in Para. 1 and 2 of the writ petition regarding the services rendered by the Club to the school have not been controverted by the appellants. It is also not disputed that three All India Sevens Football Tournaments had been organised by the first respondent in the playground of the school during the previous years with the permission of the authorities of the school. Out of the profit from the Third All India Sevens Football Tournament organised in 2002, the first respondent has offered to contribute a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only) to the school for the construction of a new stage cum class room. The first respondent has also offered to contribute to the school 60% of the profit from the proposed football tournament. The first respondent has offered to deposit an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/-which need not be refunded even if sufficient profits are not received from the tournament. Thus, if permission is granted to conduct the football tournament, the school will get at least a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/-which can be used for the development of educational facilities in the school. As we have already noted, the proposed football tournament will be during a maximum period of four weeks. The conduct of the tournament after 6.30 p.m. will not in any way affect the normal functioning of the school or the education of the students. The construction of the proposed building with the financial help of the second respondent District Panchayat will not be prevented due to the conduct of the football tournament since the said building is to be constructed only outside the area used as play-ground. The Half Yearly Examination will be over by 20-1-2004 and the Annual Examination is to be conducted only in April 2004. The football matches will not be conducted before 6.30 p.m. and therefore either the regular classes or the special classes, if any, will not be affected. The Kannamangalam Grama Panchayat and the Parent Teacher Association of the School have no objection to the conduct of the tournament. On the contrary, they are in favour of it. We are also of the view that the football tournament can develop among the students sportsman spirit and interest in games. The Kannamangalam Grama Panchayat and the Parent Teacher Association of the School have no objection to the conduct of the tournament. On the contrary, they are in favour of it. We are also of the view that the football tournament can develop among the students sportsman spirit and interest in games. We find that grant of permission to the first respondent to conduct the tournament will be to the advantage of the school and the benefit of the students. We do not see any valid reason to deny permission. 21. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent strongly opposed the grant of permission to conduct the football tournament on the ground that there is likelihood of law and order problem if the tournament is conducted. They invited our attention to the averments in the Memorandum of Writ Appeal, the affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th appellant and the affidavit of the second respondent. Moreover, registration of any case against any individual by the police cannot stand in the way of conducting a football tournament in the village. From the materials placed before the Court it is clear that if at all any tension prevailed in the area, it was in connection with the election of the President of the Kannamangalam Grama Panchayat and not in connection with the proposed football tournament. The Circle Inspector of Police, Malappuram apprehends trouble because, according to him, the football tournament is being organized by one of the parties in the cases registered in connection with the election of the President of the Gram Panchayat. But the fact remains that the tournament is organised by the Club. From the materials placed before the Court, it would appear that since a particular gentleman was removed from the post of the President of the Kannamangalam Gram Panchayat, he and his supporters do not want the football tournament to be organised by the Club. The reason for the objection appears to be that the persons actively involved in the organising of the football tournament are not his supporters. Being the local leader of a political party in power, the said gentleman is allegedly using his political influence over the authorities to prevent the conduct of the football tournament. The reason for the objection appears to be that the persons actively involved in the organising of the football tournament are not his supporters. Being the local leader of a political party in power, the said gentleman is allegedly using his political influence over the authorities to prevent the conduct of the football tournament. Even if some persons threaten to prevent or disrupt any function or event in a locality, the law enforcing agencies cannot throw up their hands in helplessness and say that the function or event should not be organised on account of such threats. It is the duty of the District Administration and the law enforcing agencies to uphold the rule of law and to enable the conduct of lawful functions and events. Otherwise the persons in power can always prevent the conduct of any event or function by getting some peo-ple to send some petitions threatening to create law and order problems. In this case, we are satisfied that the bogie of law and order problem has been raised by the appellants and the second respondent only as a ruse to prevent the holding of the football tournament as it is not to the liking of some politically influential persons. It is significant that all these apprehensions about law and order problem and the petitions against the conduct of the tournament surfaced only after the impugned judgment was delivered by the learned single Judge. There is force in the allegation of the counsel for the first respondent that the petitions against the holding of the football tourmament were deliberately engineered as part of the organised sinister attempt to prevent the conduct of the tournament. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to refuse permission to the first respondent to conduct the football tournament on the alleged ground that law and order problems are apprehended. We are not satisfied about the bona fides of the appellants in this regard. Even if any such law and order problem is likely to arise during the football tournament, the law enforcing agencies should be prepared and capable of dealing with the situation so as to maintain law and order and to prevent any breach of peace. 22. We are not satisfied about the bona fides of the appellants in this regard. Even if any such law and order problem is likely to arise during the football tournament, the law enforcing agencies should be prepared and capable of dealing with the situation so as to maintain law and order and to prevent any breach of peace. 22. Hence the writ appeal is disposed of as hereunder:- (a) The appellants are directed to permit the first respondent to organise and conduct the All India Sevens Foot Ball Tournament in the playground of the G M. U. P. School, Cherur between 20-1-2004 and 1-3-2004. (b) The tournament shall not be conducted before 6.30 p. m. (c) The organisers shall ensure that no damage is caused to the buildings and other properties of the school. (d) After the tournament, the playground shall be restored to its original position by the first respondent. (e) The first respondent shall deposit with the third appellant - Headmaster, a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- before the start of the tournament. The said amount can be utilised by the third appellant in accordance with law for the construction of the stage cum class-room as proposed by the Parent Teacher Association or for other educational purposes of the school. (f) On completion of the tournament, the first respondent shall contribute 60% of the profit to the school as promised. (g) If the teachers and the students of the school request, they shall be given free passes to watch the tournament. (h) The District Collector, Malappuram and the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram are directed to take all necessary steps to maintain law and order and to effectively prevent breach of peace and commission of offences during or in connection with the football tournament. (i) This order granting permission to the first respondent to conduct the football tournament in the playground of the G. M. U. P. School, Cherur shall not be treated as a precedent and any request for permission in future can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and in the light of the prevailing circumstances. (j) The impugned judgment will stand modified to the above extent. (k) The Registry is directed to immediately send a copy of this judgment to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police for information and compliance. Order accordingly. (j) The impugned judgment will stand modified to the above extent. (k) The Registry is directed to immediately send a copy of this judgment to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police for information and compliance. Order accordingly. Our reading of Rules 15 and 16 of Chapter IV of the KER also indicates that the view taken by the Division Bench in Abdul Sathar P. (supra) is fully in consonance with the statutory provisions. We are thus in respectful agreement with the view taken in Abdul Sathar P. (supra) . We may also profitably extract paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 21.04.2025 filed by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, which reads thus:- “3. It is respectfully submitted that before taking a final decision on the application of the 8th respondent, the Deputy Director of Education had conducted a site inspection on the land on 16.04.2025 and obtained opinion and statement directly from Mrs. Mini K.K., Headmistress and Mr. Abdul Gafoor Principal-in-charge of the School. Besides the authority conducted physical inspection on the land where the tournament is proposed to be conducted In fact, the school and playground are physically separated by a tarred public road and both areas are enclosed with boundary walls. Moreover, the proposed tournament is scheduled to be held during the summer vacation and therefore, the tournament will not affect the daily affairs of the school and students.” It is thus clear that the conduct of the tournament will not prejudice the students in any manner, and in fact, a substantial advantage will also accrue to a government school by permitting the conduct of the tournament. 12. The judgment in Gopalkrishnan v. Secretary, Corporation of Kollam ( 2002 KHC 467 ) , on the basis of which Ext.P.1 was issued, relates to the placement of advertisement boards on school premises that may influence the minds of school-going students. The law laid down therein has no application to the facts of this case. For all the above reasons, we allow this writ appeal by setting aside the impugned interim order dated 02.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025, and vacating the interim order dated 4.4.2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025. The law laid down therein has no application to the facts of this case. For all the above reasons, we allow this writ appeal by setting aside the impugned interim order dated 02.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025, and vacating the interim order dated 4.4.2025 in W.P.(C) No.14093 of 2025. While doing so, we also feel it appropriate to issue the following directions: i. The Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, will forthwith issue an order indicating the terms upon which the appellant is permitted to use the school ground. The said order must clearly specify the benefit that will be accrued to the school through the PTA or otherwise from the conduct of the tournament; ii. The rent, as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 16 of Chapter 4 of the KER, shall also be demanded and collected from the appellant; iii. An undertaking that any damage caused to the properties of the school shall be made good by the organisers shall also be taken as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 16 of Chapter 4 of the Kerala Education Rules ; iv. Subject to compliance with the above conditions, the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram, will permit the appellant to conduct the tournament. It shall also be ensured that the conduct of the tournament will not interfere in any manner with the conduct of academic activities at the school. The writ appeal is disposed of as above.