Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1436 (KER)

K. v. M. S Educational Society VS State of Kerala

2025-05-26

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

body2025
JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioners being aggrieved by Exts. P4, P6 and P9 orders by which the applications submitted by the petitioners to appoint the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager of V.K.N.M.V.H.S.S., Vayyattupuzha, Pathanamthitta District was rejected. The 1 st petitioner is the President of Kerala Vellala Maha Sabha (KVMS) governed by Ext.P1 bye-laws approved by the Educational Authorities concerned. The 2 nd petitioner claims to be the duly elected President of the 1 st respondent. 2. The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: The 1 st petitioner-Society was formed with an objective to establish and run different educational institutions at various levels. As per Ext.P1 bye -laws, the President of the Society will be the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the 1 st petitioner-Society and as per Clause 7(h) of the said bye-laws, the Chairman of the Managing Committee will be the Manager of the educational institutions under the Society. 3. Earlier, one (Late) Punalur Madhu was appointed as the Manager of the school referred to above, on 10.04.2013 and his appointment was approved vide Ext.P2 order. Later, in the election conducted during the year, 2017, the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President of the Society. Thereafter, the said Punalur Madhu and the 2 nd petitioner submitted a joint application, seeking approval of the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager of the School. Since there was a delay in considering the said application, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.29739/2021, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3, directing the 4 th respondent to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in this regard. When the aforesaid writ petition came up for consideration, Ext.P3(a) interim order was also passed directing the Educational Authorities to grant user login credentials of the Samanwaya portal to the petitioners. 4. However, the application submitted by the petitioners was rejected by the 4 th respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated 16.12.2022 on the reason that, the term of the petitioner expired during March, 2019 and no election was conducted. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent as contemplated under Rule 4(3) Chapter III of K.E.R. The said appeal was considered by the 2 nd respondent and as per Ext.P6 order, the said appeal was rejected. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent as contemplated under Rule 4(3) Chapter III of K.E.R. The said appeal was considered by the 2 nd respondent and as per Ext.P6 order, the said appeal was rejected. In Ext.P6, the 2 nd respondent issued a further direction to the District Educational Officer to take over the management of the School, as according to the 2 nd respondent, there are several litigations between the members of the educational agency regarding the management of the school. 5. Challenging Ext.P6, a Revision Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent as contemplated under Rule 4(4), Chapter III of K.E.R. As there was delay in considering the said application, WP(C)No.2540/2024 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment. In Ext.P8 judgment, there was a specific direction to the 1 st respondent to pass orders after considering the documents produced as Exts.P8 to P12 produced therein. However, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 1 st respondent, rejecting the said Revision Petition on the reason that there are several disputes between the members of the educational society and several litigations are pending before the Civil Court. This Writ Petition was submitted by the petitioners challenging Exts.P4, Ext.P6 and P9 orders. 6. In the writ petition, it was specifically averred that, as against the results of the election conducted in the year, 2017 in which the 2 nd petitioner was appointed as the President, one of the members of the educational agency filed O.S.No.70/2017. In the meanwhile, the 5 th respondent in this writ petition and some other persons had convened a meeting on 25.5.2017 and declared themselves as the office bearers of this society and therefore O.S.No.90/2017 was submitted by the Society before the Munsiff court, Ranni for restraining the defendants therein including the 5 th respondent herein from acting or representing the office bearers of the Society. The defendants in O.S.No.90/2017 filed O.S.No.112/2017 to declare them as the Secretary of the Society and also to restrain the plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2017 from acting as the office bearers of the society. All three suits referred to above were jointly tried and by way of common judgment dated 22.01.2020 the suits numbered as O.S.No.70/2017 and O.S.No.112/2017 were dismissed. The defendants in O.S.No.90/2017 filed O.S.No.112/2017 to declare them as the Secretary of the Society and also to restrain the plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2017 from acting as the office bearers of the society. All three suits referred to above were jointly tried and by way of common judgment dated 22.01.2020 the suits numbered as O.S.No.70/2017 and O.S.No.112/2017 were dismissed. O.S.No.90/2017 filed by the 1 st petitioner Society for restraining the defendants therein, including the 5 th respondent herein, from acting or representing as office bearers of the Society was decreed, granting an injunction to that effect. The appeals were filed by the aggrieved parties before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. A.S.No.22/2022 filed against O.S.No.70/2017 was dismissed by the District Court, Pathanamthitta against which R.S.A.No.653/2022 was filed before this Court, which is now pending consideration. 7. In the meantime, an election notification dated 5.9.2022 was published proposing to conduct the election to the Director Board of the Society on 26.02.2023. Exhibit P10 was the aforesaid notification. The appellant in R.S.A.No.653/2022 filed I.A.No.1/2023 in the said appeal, seeking an order to restrain the Society from conducting the election based on Ext.P10. However, after hearing all the parties to the said appeal, this Court rejected the said Interlocutory Application by holding that the proceedings can go on based on Ext.P10. Exhibit P11 is the said order dated 7.2.2023 passed by this court. Accordingly, an election was conducted on 26.02.2023, in which, the 2 nd petitioner was again elected as the President of the 1 st respondent Society. Exhibits P12(a) and P12(b) are the election results and the decision taken by the Director Board respectively. 8. According to the petitioners, while so, some of the persons including the respondents 5 and 6 made an attempt to grab the management of the Society which compelled the 1 st respondent Society represented by the 2 nd petitioner and the General Secretary, to file O.S.No.142/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Ranni, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants therein from illegally acting as the office bearers of the Society. As per Ext.P13, an interim injunction order was passed after hearing all the parties to the suit, restraining the respondents/defendants therein from representing themselves as the President, General Secretary and Treasurer and they were also restrained from issuing communications in the letterhead of the Society. As per Ext.P13, an interim injunction order was passed after hearing all the parties to the suit, restraining the respondents/defendants therein from representing themselves as the President, General Secretary and Treasurer and they were also restrained from issuing communications in the letterhead of the Society. In Ext.P13, a specific finding was entered into by the Munsiff Court, Ranni, that, the meeting in which the defendants therein were claimed to have been elected on 01.10.2023, was not conducted as contemplated in the bye-laws. 9. Later, yet another suit was filed by the 1 st petitioner as O.S.No.139/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Ranni seeking injunction restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with the administration of the 1 st petitioner-Society and committing any acts obstructing the peaceful administration of the school. Exhibit P14 is the order of injunction passed in the said suit, in favour of the 1 st petitioner by which the respondents/defendants therein were restrained from entering into the plaint schedule property and building therein and from taking forcible possession of the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. The respondents/defendants were also restrained from interfering with the administration of the plaintiff Society and committing any acts obstructing the peaceful administration of the VKNM HS School. Even though the said orders are challenged by filing CMA No.5/2024 before the District Court, as of now, there are no orders interfering with Ext.P14. Thus, the specific contention of the petitioners is that, respondents 1, 2 and 4 should not have denied the legitimate right of the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners to manage the affairs of the school, by simply stating that there are several litigations pending between the members of the Society touching upon the right of the management. It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed challenging the said orders. 10. The 5 th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, in which it was contended that Ext.P1 is not the bye-law which was approved by the Educational authorities. The right of the petitioners to represent the Society was also disputed by them as according to them, the 2 nd respondent was not elected properly as contemplated under the bye-laws. According to the 5 th respondent, the term of office bearers of the Society is already expired and no fresh elections have been held. The right of the petitioners to represent the Society was also disputed by them as according to them, the 2 nd respondent was not elected properly as contemplated under the bye-laws. According to the 5 th respondent, the term of office bearers of the Society is already expired and no fresh elections have been held. He also referred to Ext.R5(b) order issued from the office of the Inspector General of Registration with regard to the enquiry proposed to be initiated by the Registrar, Kerala Non Trading Companies & Registration Deputy Inspector General (Licensing). 11. The 6 th respondent also filed a counter affidavit raising similar contentions that of the 5 th respondent by denying the right of the 2 nd petitioner to represent the Society. 12. A reply affidavit was submitted by the petitioner disputing the averments made by the 5 th and 6 th respondents in their respective counter affidavits. Along with the said reply affidavit, additional documents were also produced to substantiate their claim. 13. I have heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K.G.Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent and Smt.Shameena Salahudheen, the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 14. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioners to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager of the school is legally sustainable or not. As far as the party respondents are concerned, they have raised various objections against the reliefs sought, as according to them, the 2 nd petitioner was never elected, as contemplated under the bye-laws of the Society. The 5 th and 6 th respondents have also contended that Ext.P1 is not the approved bye-laws. However, apart from raising a contention that Ext.P1 was not the approved bye-laws, no other materials are produced to substantiate the same and they have also not produced any bye-laws which according to them was approved by the authorities concerned. On the other hand, Ext.P1 contains an endorsement to the effect that, the same was approved as per order No.B4/8774/21 dated 27.10.21 by the Deputy Director (Education), Pathanamthitta. On the other hand, Ext.P1 contains an endorsement to the effect that, the same was approved as per order No.B4/8774/21 dated 27.10.21 by the Deputy Director (Education), Pathanamthitta. It is also discernible from the orders passed by the authorities that, the bye-laws of the 1 st respondent was approved by the Educational authorities and as per the terms of the same, the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Society has to act as the Manager of the School. The 5 th and 6 th respondents even though contended that, Ext.P1 is not the bye- laws, no contentions have been raised by them denying the assertion of the petitioners that, as per the terms of the bye-laws, the Chairman of the managing committee has to act as Manager of the Society. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that, the Chairman of the Governing Committee of the Society has to be appointed as the Manager of the school. 15. Thus, the question that arises, therefore is, who is the Chairman of the managing committee of the 1 st petitioner-society as per the documents available on record. It is also to be noted in this regard that as per the bye-laws, the President has to be the Chairman of the management committee which is also not described at all. 16. While examining the said question, it is noted that, in the year, 2017, an election was conducted, in which, the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President of the 1 st petitioner Society. Even though a challenge was raised against such election, before the Munsiff Court, Ranni by way of filing O.S.No.70/2017, the same was rejected as per Ext.P15 which is a common judgment passed in O.S.No.70/2017, O.S.No.112/2017 and O.S.No.90/2017. The findings in Ext.P15 would indicate that, the learned Munsiff came to a specific conclusion that, election was indeed conducted in the year 2017 in which the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President. The election claimed to have been conducted and the consequential election of some of the defendants, was found to be not legally sustainable as well. Exhibit P15 is confirmed by the appellate court and the challenge against the same is now pending before this court as RSA No.653/2022. Thus, as of now, the election conducted in the year, 2017 is already upheld by the courts concerned. 17. Exhibit P15 is confirmed by the appellate court and the challenge against the same is now pending before this court as RSA No.653/2022. Thus, as of now, the election conducted in the year, 2017 is already upheld by the courts concerned. 17. Now, when coming to Ext.P4 order by which the application of the petitioners was rejected, it can be seen that the dismissal was on the reason that the term of the 2 nd petitioner had expired by the time the application was considered. It is also discernible from the records that, the delay in disposing of the application apparently occurred as the petitioners concerned failed to produce an approved bye-laws as well. However, ultimately they produced the bye- laws which was approved on 27.10.2021 and the Ext.P4 order was passed accordingly. 18. Subsequent to the above, a further election was conducted based on Ext.P10 notification on 26.2.2023 in which the 2 nd petitioner was again elected as the President of the Society. Even before the said election based on Ext P10, a challenge was raised against the conduct of election by filing an interlocutory application before this Court in RSA No.653/2022 which culminated in Ext.P11 order by which it was rejected. Thus, the election was conducted based on the approval of this court as evidenced by the said order. Exhibit P12 series documents would indicate the results of the election in which the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President. None of the party respondents has a case that, the election as evidenced by Ext.P12 series was challenged by any of the persons. Moreover, it is evident from Ext.P13 interlocutory order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ranni in O.S.No.142/2023 that the defendants therein claimed that, in the general body meeting of the Society held on 1.10.2023, the office bearers of the society including the 2 nd petitioner were removed and some of the defendants therein have assumed the charge as the office bearers of the said Society. However, in Ext.P13 order, the sustainability of the meeting held on 1.10.2023 was examined and the court arrived at a prima facie finding that, the same was not properly conducted and therefore the respondents/defendants therein cannot act as the President, General Secretary of the Society. However, in Ext.P13 order, the sustainability of the meeting held on 1.10.2023 was examined and the court arrived at a prima facie finding that, the same was not properly conducted and therefore the respondents/defendants therein cannot act as the President, General Secretary of the Society. Thus, even according to the defendants therein, one of the purposes of the meeting held on 01.10.2023 was to remove the office bearers including the 2 nd petitioner. This fortifies the contention of the petitioners that, on 26.02.2023 an election was conducted in which the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President. 19. Similarly, Ext.P14 is yet another interlocutory order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ranni in O.S.No.139/2023, wherein, the respondents/defendants therein were restrained from entering into the property and the building of the school and they were also restrained from interfering with the administration of the school. In both these orders, the election conducted on 26.2.2023 wherein the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President was referred to and a prima facie finding has been entered into accepting validity of the election. Thus, when the sequence of events right from 2017 are examined, it can be seen that, the election in which the 2 nd petitioner was initially elected as the President of the Society conducted in the year, 2017 was upheld by the Munsiff Court and the said finding was already confirmed by the appellate court as well. As far as the election which is conducted on 26.2.2023, is concerned, it was based on the approval of this Court as evidenced by Ext.P11 and the same is not under challenge in any of the proceedings as well. 20. On the other hand, the election which was conducted on 26.2.2023 was specifically referred to in Exts.P13 and P14 orders and a prima facie finding in favour of the sustainability of the said election was entered into by the court concerned as well. The aforesaid orders are also not interfered with so far even though the challenge against the same are pending before the court concerned. Thus, as of now, there are materials to conclude that an election was indeed conducted on 26.02.2023 and the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President of the Society. 21. Now when coming to the impugned orders i.e., Exts. Thus, as of now, there are materials to conclude that an election was indeed conducted on 26.02.2023 and the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the President of the Society. 21. Now when coming to the impugned orders i.e., Exts. P4,P5,P6 and P9, it has to be noticed that, in Exts.P6 and P9, the 2 nd respondent and the 1st respondent have taken a consistent view that, since there are litigations between the members of the Society as to the management of the school, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered. As per Ext.P6, the 4th respondent was directed to assume the charge of the school as a temporary measure, until the issues are resolved. One of the specific contentions raised by the petitioners is that, as far as the Educational agency is concerned, they have a fundamental right to manage the affairs of the school. According to them, the circumstances under which the management can be taken over by the Educational authorities are specifically contemplated under section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. In this case, no circumstances as contemplated under the said provision are in existence, warranting taking over the management. Besides, it was also the case of the petitioners that, merely because there are disputes pending between the members of the Educational agency regarding the management of the school, that would not enable the Educational authorities concerned to reject the application for approval of the manager. According to the petitioners, the Educational authorities ought to have appointed the manager, who is prima facie eligible to be appointed as the manager. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a series of judgments including, A. Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and Others [ 1984 KLT 773 ], Dr. Philippose Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala and Others [MANU/KE/0426/1986], Usman Kurikkal O.V. v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2011(2) KHC 867 ] and Kuthuparamba Educational Society, Kannur and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020(4) KHC 788 ] etc. 22. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th and 6 th respondents vehemently contended that the scope of interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the orders passed by the Educational authorities is very limited. In this case, the authorities have examined the matter in detail and taken a probable view and therefore no interference is warranted. In this case, the authorities have examined the matter in detail and taken a probable view and therefore no interference is warranted. The reliance was placed on the decisions on Royal Goan Beach Resorts LLP (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and Another [2020(6) KLT 831], Mohammed Rafi and others v. Anil Kumar B.S. and Others [ 2018 KHC 412 ] and B.Rajagopal v. Jomy Xavier & Another [ 2010 (2) KHC 196 ] etc. It was also contended that the decisions of the authorities concerned are within the confines of reasonableness and therefore, it is not for this court to look further into their merits. 23. After carefully going through the records, and hearing the contentions raised by the respective counsels for the parties, I find considerable merits in the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents have passed Exhibits P9 and P6 orders respectively, only because of the reason that, since several litigations are pending between the parties regarding the management of the school, the application of the 2 nd petitioner need not be considered. Thus, the question that arises is whether is it possible for them to simply avoid the consideration of the application for approval of the manager merely because of the pendency of the disputes between the parties concerned. 24. In this regard, the observations made by this court in Usman Kurikkal’ s case (supra) are very much relevant. In the said decision, after referring to Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act , it was held that, the right to run an aided school can be interfered with the Educational authorities only if the conditions under Section 14 (1) of the Act are satisfied and the said provision reads as follows: “1) It must appear to the Government that the manager of the school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under the Act or the Rules made thereunder; and (2) In the public interest it is necessary to take over the management of the school.” It was also held that the right of the Educational authorities to manage the school cannot be deprived on mere whims and fancies of the Government by taking over the management. It was further observed that a dispute between some persons who constitute the Educational agency for management by itself does not constitute a complete exhaustive reason for taking over the management of the school in the absence of any of the ingredients of section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) of the Act is not intended to deal with the dispute between two or more parties for managership but intended for a larger purpose and to achieve a wider object. 25. In this case, it is evident that the only reason which prompted the authorities concerned not to take a decision on the application on the petitioners, was the pendency of the disputes between the members of the Educational agency. However, when the nature and stages of the litigations are carefully scrutinized, it can be seen that, there are several orders which establish a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Those important factors are as follows; (a) The 2017 election, in which the petitioner was elected as the President, was upheld by a competent Civil Court and confirmed by the appellate court. The said judgments have not been interfered with so far. (b) Based on Ext.P10 election notification, an election was conducted on 26.2.2023 with the approval of this court as per Ext.P11, in which the 2 nd petitioner was again elected as the President, as evidenced by Ext.P12 series. (c) The result of the election as evidenced by Ext.P12 is not under challenge before any of the courts concerned. (d) The election held on 26.2.2023 was specifically referred to in Exts.P13 and P14 interlocutory orders by the competent Civil Court and a prima facie finding was entered into by upholding the legal validity of the same. (e) More importantly, a meeting claimed to have been held by the rivals of the petitioners on 1.10.2023, wherein, the office bearers who were elected on 26.2.2023 were claimed to have been removed and some other office bearers were elected, was held to be not properly convened as per the bye-laws. (f) None of the party respondents has a case that there are any other elected members who are competent to act as the President and other office bearers and instead, they are simply raising a contention that the 2 nd petitioner does not have the locus standi to represent the first petitioner Society. 26. (f) None of the party respondents has a case that there are any other elected members who are competent to act as the President and other office bearers and instead, they are simply raising a contention that the 2 nd petitioner does not have the locus standi to represent the first petitioner Society. 26. When all the above aspects are carefully scrutinised, the only conclusion possible is that there are ample materials to arrive at a prima facie case that the application submitted by the petitioners is to be allowed by the authorities concerned. Going by the nature of the conditions contained in Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act , which provides for the circumstances under which the management of the school can be taken over, it can be seen that the same has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances where the conditions mentioned therein are clearly established. As held in Usman's case (supra), mere existence of dispute between the members of the Educational agency by itself cannot be a reason to exercise its jurisdiction. As far as the obligations and duties of the Educational agencies are concerned when considering the approval of appointment of the Manager, the proper course to be adopted is to find out the best person to manage the affairs of the school by keeping view of the welfare of the students of the institution. As far as the dispute between the members of the Educational agency is concerned, a final decision has to be taken by a competent civil court. In this case, as observed above, there is already a finding in favour of the 2 nd petitioner by a competent civil court with respect to the election conducted in the year, 2017. With respect to the election conducted on 26.2.2023 also, there are findings by the competent civil courts, even though prima facie in nature. Therefore, the proper course that was available before the 1 st and 2 nd respondents was to follow the findings of the competent civil courts and to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner based on such findings. The Educational authorities should not have simply refrained themselves from exercising their jurisdiction in considering the said application merely because of the pendency of the dispute, particularly when, there are findings entered into by the competent civil court in favour of the person who is seeking such approval. The Educational authorities should not have simply refrained themselves from exercising their jurisdiction in considering the said application merely because of the pendency of the dispute, particularly when, there are findings entered into by the competent civil court in favour of the person who is seeking such approval. Therefore, I do not find any justification on the part of the 1 st respondent and other Educational authorities in taking a decision not to consider the application of the petitioners for approval of the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager. The petitioners could establish a strong prima facie case in their favour through Exts. P13,P14 and P15. For those reasons, some interference is required in the matter. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P9, with a direction to the 4 th respondent to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the manager of the V.K.N.M.V.H.S.S., Vayyattupuzha, Pathanamthitta District and the necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that, this order will not preclude the members of the Educational agency from approaching a competent civil court against the election of the 2 nd petitioner. It is clarified that, in case any such orders are passed by the civil court, the order that would be passed by the 1 st respondent in compliance with the directions in this judgment, shall be subject to such orders.