Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1168 (KER)

Shanitha T K D/o. T K Muhammed v. State of Kerala

2025-05-13

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The petitioner states that Mr. Thandaparakkal Muhammed, the father of the petitioner, founded KMHS, Karulai Aided High School in Wandoor Educational District in the year 1968. He was the individual educational agency and Manager of the School till his death on 14.02.2023. The petitioner seeks to declare that the appointment and approval of the 5 th respondent as Manager of the School is invalid and illegal. The petitioner has sought certain other consequential and incidental reliefs, including a declaration that Ext.P1 Trust Deed is void ab initio. 2. The petitioner states that a public Charitable Trust under the name “Kottarakkad Charitable Trust” was constituted by Thandaparakkal Muhammed on 05.02.2013, as per Ext.P1. However, ownership of the School and right to transfer the management of the School was not transferred to the Trust till Thandaparakkal Muhammed died. 3. The preamble of the Deed of Trust was amended by three out of four Trustees stating that it is desirous of entrusting the management of the School along with its building, accessories and assets to the Trust for the purpose of conducting the School, without involving any change of landed property and managership of the School. According to the petitioner, even after the amendment, Mr. Thandaparakkal Muhammed continued to be the Manager of the School till his death. 4. After the demise of Muhammed, the 5 th respondent was wrongly appointed as the Manager of the School. The DEO illegally approved the appointment. The Additional Director General of Education set aside the order of the DEO. In the revision filed by the 5 th respondent, the 1 st respondent-Government passed an order quashing the order passed by the 2 nd respondent and confirmed the order passed by the 4 th respondent-DEO. 5. The petitioner would contend that the Trust constituted under Ext.P1 is not an educational agency and it does not have any proprietary rights over the property and management of the School. It is alleged that the Trust Deed was approved on 03.04.2014 as the constitution of the educational agency, as per Ext.P3 order of the Deputy Director of Education. It was further alleged that Ext.P4 bye- laws of the School was approved by the DEO. It is alleged that the Trust Deed was approved on 03.04.2014 as the constitution of the educational agency, as per Ext.P3 order of the Deputy Director of Education. It was further alleged that Ext.P4 bye- laws of the School was approved by the DEO. Without considering the fact that there was no transfer of proprietorship of the School or management of the School, the DEO approved the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Manager as per Ext.P5 order. The Director General of Education interfered with Ext.P5 and passed Ext.P6 order. In revision, the Government passed Ext.P8 order dated 09.05.2024 upholding the decision of the DEO. 6. The petitioner contended that the right to transfer the right of management or right to conduct the School was not entrusted or transferred to the Trust. Ext.P2 amendment to the Trust Deed is illegal. The District Educational Officer does not have the authority to approve the bye-laws or rules framed under the KER. The Trust is admittedly not a corporate educational agency. Only an educational agency having proprietary right is empowered to appoint the Manager. Ext.P8 is therefore illegal and is liable to be set aside. 7. Respondents 5 to 7 resisted the writ petition. What are challenged in the writ petition are disputed questions of fact and hence a writ petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner is claiming any right under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, she has alternate remedy. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the Trust and is one of the signatories in the minutes of the meeting of the Trust held on 25.05.2013, in which the Chairman declared that he is ready to handover the School to the Trust. The said resolution was implemented. 8. Subsequently also, the petitioner participated in the Trust meetings on 15.08.2013, 21.09.2013, 02.12.2013, etc. The petitioner continued to attend the meetings even subsequently. Thereafter, at a belated stage, on 27.03.2023 the petitioner submitted a petition before the DEO. On 11.03.2023, majority members of the Trust decided to appoint the 5 th respondent as Manager. The petitioner did not attend the said meeting. Therefore, another meeting was convened on 20.04.2023. On that day also, the petitioner did not attend the meeting though the petitioner had notice. 9. The DEO rightly approved the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Manager as per Ext.P5. The petitioner did not attend the said meeting. Therefore, another meeting was convened on 20.04.2023. On that day also, the petitioner did not attend the meeting though the petitioner had notice. 9. The DEO rightly approved the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Manager as per Ext.P5. The Government rightly upheld that decision as per Ext.P8 order. Clause 12 of the bye-laws provides that Chairman of the Trust shall be the Manager of the School. After the death of the Chairman, the 5 th respondent was appointed as the Manager. The petitioner has not challenged the approved bye-laws. The petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P2 amendment made on 05.11.2013 after more than ten years. A Trust Deed or its amendment cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore only to be dismissed. 10. The 3 rd respondent also resisted the writ petition. The petitioner forwarded a complaint against the managership. Thereupon, the Deputy Director of Education conducted a hearing issuing notice to the Trust members. The Trust was registered on 05.09.2010 before the District Registrar. The constitution of the Trust was approved by the Deputy Director on 03.04.2014. The bye-laws were approved on 19.06.2014. 11. As regards the meeting held on 11.03.2023, meeting notice was issued to all members. The petitioner did not sign the minutes. Therefore, another meeting was held on 20.04.2023 issuing registered notice. On 20.04.2023 also, the petitioner did not sign the minutes. Three out of the four Trustees attended the meeting. Ext.P8 order is perfectly legal. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7. 13. Thandaparakkal Muhammed founded the School in the year 1968. He was the individual educational agency and Manager of the School then. Ext.P1 public Charitable Trust was constituted on 05.02.2013. Ext.P2 amendment was made to the Trust Deed on 05.11.2013. The amendment provided that it is desirous of entrusting the management of the School along with its building, accessories and assets to the Trust for the purpose of conducting the School under the management of the Trust, without involving any change of landed property and managership of the School. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 amendment. Constitution of a Trust or amendment to a Trust Deed, cannot be challenged in writ proceedings. 14. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 amendment. Constitution of a Trust or amendment to a Trust Deed, cannot be challenged in writ proceedings. 14. Ext.P8 order dated 09.05.2023 would indicate that the Government has considered all the facts exhaustively while taking Ext.P5 decision. It is the majority decision of the Trust to appoint the 5 th respondent as Manager. The petitioner also was given notice of the Trust meeting by registered post. The Government did not find any illegality in appointing the 5 th respondent as Manager. 15. The petitioner also is a member of the Trust. The petitioner has been attending the Trust meetings regularly earlier. The petitioner is a signatory in the minutes of the meeting of the Trust held on 25.05.2013 in which the Chairman declared that he is ready to handover the School to the Trust. In the meeting of the Trust held on 15.08.2013, it was decided to introduce an amendment. The petitioner attended the said Trust meeting also. Thereafter, another meeting was held on 21.09.2013 in which the Trust unanimously decided to entrust the management of the School to the Trust as per Ext.R5(c). The petitioner was party to the said meeting also. 16. The petitioner has come up with an objection to the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Manager after about ten years, on 27.03.2023. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 amendment is illegal and the amendment does not provide for change of ownership or management of the School to the Trust. 17. It is evident that basically, the petitioner is challenging the Trust Deed and its amendment and seeks an interpretation of Exts.P1 and P2 in her favour. Such an exercise cannot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Disputes relating to property, status or right have to be adjudicated upon in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for the writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking resolution of civil disputes. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is hence dismissed.