Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1443 (KER)

St. Mary's College Manarcaud v. State of Kerala

2025-05-26

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.V.BALAKRISHNAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : P.V.Balakrishnan, J. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16981 of 2023, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed therein, has filed this intra court appeal. 2. The appellants/petitioners are St.Mary’s College, Manarcaud and its Manager. The writ petition was filed by them seeking the following reliefs: “i).To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order calling forth the records pertaining to Ext.P-34 and set aside the same; ii). To declare that the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners are empowered to make appointments as the Manager in St.Mary's College, Manarcaud;” 3. Ext.P34, which was challenged in the writ petition, is an order passed by the 2 nd respondent herein, wherein it was found that there was no valid governing body for the governance of St.Mary’s College, Manarcaud and the formation of a valid governing body has to depend upon the orders to be passed by the Civil Court, wherein the disputes regarding management of the college is pending. Ext.P34 order also directed the parties concerned to maintain status quo till a decision is rendered by the Civil Court and instructed the Principal to engage guest lecturers in the college during the meantime. 4. A learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record, disposed off W.P.(C) No.16981 of 2023 by the judgment dated 22.11.2023, wherein it was held thus: “ 2. I am in complete agreement with the above said submission. It is neither for the Director of Collegiate Education nor this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide on the validity of the meetings held and the election of Governing Body,as a Court of original civil jurisdiction. 3. Admittedly, O.S.Nos.48 of 2022 & 748 of 2022 are pending, in which the petitioners and the respondents are parties. The issues which are raised in the civil suits relate to management of the College as well as the election to the Governing Body of the society. It is submitted that some other civil suits are also pending. But these are the civil suits pending as between the parties in this writ petition and connected writ petitions [W.P.(C)Nos.9183 of 2023, 9262 of 2023 & 13260 of 2023]. Since the matters are already pending before the competent civil court, it is only appropriate that the civil court decides on the issue. But these are the civil suits pending as between the parties in this writ petition and connected writ petitions [W.P.(C)Nos.9183 of 2023, 9262 of 2023 & 13260 of 2023]. Since the matters are already pending before the competent civil court, it is only appropriate that the civil court decides on the issue. The civil court may also consider whether O.S.No.48 of 2022 can be taken as the lead case for the purpose of exploring the possibility of mediation. 4. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that the parties are relegated to their remedies before the civil court. The only other aspect is whether a direction issued in Ext.P34 order by the Director of Collegiate Education that status quo should be maintained should be continued indefinitely. On the said question, since the civil court is already in seisin of the matter, it is only appropriate that the parties approach the civil court itself for directions regarding the management of the College which ultimately is one of the suit properties involved in the suit that needs to be maintained. The parties can prefer appropriate application regarding the management and the civil court can decide on it. Having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties and the fact that it involves the Parishioners as well, I am of the opinion that before proceeding with the trial, the civil court should explore the possibility of a mediation through its Mediation Centre, which can avoid several unnecessary litigations on these aspects. It is expected that the civil court decides the case at the earliest.” 5. It is challenging this judgment, this writ appeal is filed. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 9. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that O.S.No.48 of 2022 and O.S.No.748 of 2022 are pending before the Civil Courts in Kottayam, regarding the disputes relating to the management of the college, the election to the governing body of the Society and the amendment of the bye-laws of the Society. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that O.S.No.48 of 2022 and O.S.No.748 of 2022 are pending before the Civil Courts in Kottayam, regarding the disputes relating to the management of the college, the election to the governing body of the Society and the amendment of the bye-laws of the Society. If so, considering the fact that the disputed questions of fact are involved in this matter and the fact that the Civil Court is already seisin of the dispute, we are of the view that no interference is required with the impugned judgment, which has left open the rights of the parties to approach the Civil Court and obtain orders. Hence, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the parties in this appeal to approach the Civil Court where the disputes are pending.