Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2185 (KER)

Milad-E-Sherief Memorial Trust v. State Of Kerala

2025-08-13

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42606 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 of the 2 nd respondent Additional Director of Public Instructions and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to approve the 2 nd appellant as the Manager of PKK Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary School, Kayamkulam. 2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the 1 st appellant is an Educational Trust under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and is functioning from 01.11.1978. The 2 nd appellant is the Secretary of the Trust and also the Manager of the Institutions under the Trust in view of Ext P1 approved bylaw of the Trust. The appellants further pleaded that as per Clause 8(b) of Ext.P1 bylaw, the power to remove a member is vested with the General Body of the Trust. As per Clause 9 of Ext.P1, the Executive Committee does not have any power to remove a member or an office bearer. The 2 nd appellant was elected as the Secretary- Cum-Manager in the General Body of the Trust held on 26.10.2019. By Ext.P2 notice dated 05.02.2024, a meeting of the General Body of the Trust was scheduled on 18.02.2024. While so, the 4 th respondent and his men, including a few office bearers of the Trust, called a meeting of the Executive Committee on 16.02.2024. They claimed that a decision was taken to expel the 2 nd appellant and to appoint the 4 th respondent as the Manager. By relying on the Clauses in Ext.P1, the appellants pleaded that the power to expel a member is vested only with the General Body and the meeting allegedly held on 16.02.2024 is not as per the bylaw. 2.1. It is the further case of the appellants that the meeting convened by the 4 th respondent and others was intended only to create forged seals of the Trust and also to forge documents, to get the administration of the Trust. 2.1. It is the further case of the appellants that the meeting convened by the 4 th respondent and others was intended only to create forged seals of the Trust and also to forge documents, to get the administration of the Trust. The 4 th respondent and his men committed some criminal offences, and hence the 2 nd appellant filed a complaint before the Police and Ext.P2(a) FIR bearing crime No.235 of 2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station was registered on 26.02.2024. When the General Body was convened on 18.02.2024, various members moved resolutions against the 4 th respondent and other persons who have participated in the Executive Committee meeting on 16.02.2024. The General Body expelled the 4 th respondent and other persons who have acted against the best interest of the Trust, expressing their no confidence, from the Executive Committee. New office bearers were also elected in that meeting, and in pursuance of the election conducted in the General Body meeting, the list was duly produced before the District Registrar. Then Ext.P5(a) proposal dated 27.04.2024 was submitted to the 3 rd respondent District Educational Officer, along with an application for change of management. 2.2. The appellants state that by Ext.P6 proceedings dated 16.02.2024, the 3 rd respondent District Educational Officer, in collusion with the 4 th respondent, approved the 4 th respondent as the Manager, despite receipt of the intimation regarding the constitution of the new Executive Committee. In the application submitted by the 4 th respondent for transfer of management, wrong informations are furnished. Ext.P6 proceedings were therefore challenged by the appellants by filing W.P.(C)No.15662 of 2024. In that writ petition, Ext.P7 judgment dated 29.05.2024 was passed by this Court directing the 2 nd respondent to pass an appropriate order in the statutory appeal preferred by the appellants, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. It was further directed in that judgment that if a stay petition is filed within a period of one week, the 2 nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties within two weeks of receipt of the stay petition. 2.3. It was further directed in that judgment that if a stay petition is filed within a period of one week, the 2 nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties within two weeks of receipt of the stay petition. 2.3. The appellants, along with other office bearers of the Trust, filed a civil suit as O.S. No.149 of 2024 before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the 4 th respondent and his men from interfering with the administration and management of the Trust acting as the Manager. By Ext.P8 order dated 09.05.2024, an ad interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court. In pursuance of the direction in Ext.P7 judgment, the appellants have filed Ext.P9 stay petition dated 07.06.2024 before the 2 nd respondent. Taking advantage of the delay in pronouncing the orders by the 2 nd respondent, the 4 th respondent and his men were trying to cause prejudice to the functioning of the school. Meanwhile, the ad interim injunction granted in O.S.No.149 of 2024 was also vacated as per Ext.P12 order dated 25.06.2024. Immediately after vacating the interim injunction, the 4 th respondent and his men attempted to disrupt the functioning of the school. 2.4. The appellants then approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C)No.23652 of 2024 seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to entrust the Deputy Director of Education to be put in charge with the administration of the school, appointing him as the Manager till the veracity of Ext.P6 proceedings is finalised. This Court passed Ext.P13 interim order dated 02.07.2024 in that writ petition. In furtherance of Ext.P13 order, the Director General of Education passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024, staying Ext.P6 and appointing the 3 rd respondent as the temporary Manager of the school. 2.5. Ext.P14 order passed by the Director of General Education was challenged before this Court by the appellants to the extent to which the District Educational Officer was appointed as the Manager of the school. That writ petition was initially heard along with W.P.(C)No.23652 of 2024. 2.5. Ext.P14 order passed by the Director of General Education was challenged before this Court by the appellants to the extent to which the District Educational Officer was appointed as the Manager of the school. That writ petition was initially heard along with W.P.(C)No.23652 of 2024. While so the appeal filed against Ext.P12 order was allowed by the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara and by virtue of Ext.P15 judgment dated 30.09.2024 in C.M.A. No.22 of 2024 an order of injunction restraining the 4 th respondent and his men from acting as the office bearers of the 1 st appellant Trust and also injuncting the 4 th respondent from interfering with and obstructing the administration and affairs of the Trust was ordered. 2.6. W.P.(C)No.25455 of 2024 filed by the appellants against Ext.P14 was disposed of by Ext.P17 judgment dated 28.10.2024, directing the 2 nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal filed by the appellants. The 2 nd respondent then issued Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and permitting the District Educational Officer to continue as the Manager of the school. Then the appellants approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.42606 of 2024, which resulted in the impugned judgment. 3. In the writ petition, the 4 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.03.2025 opposing the reliefs sought and producing therewith Exts.R4 (a) and R4(b) documents. 4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the departmental authorities cannot enter into the issues pertaining to the conduct of elections to a public Trust which is to be contested by the parties before a court of law and the authorities noted that the disputes are pending before the civil courts and therefore there is no illegality in the decision of the 2 nd respondent to appoint the District Educational Officer as the temporary Manager of the school. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would argue that when the approval granted in Ext.P6 proceedings appointing the 4 th respondent as the Manager was interfered with by the Director of General Education by Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024, the natural consequence ought to have been to allow the person who has been holding the office of the Manager prior to Ext.P6 proceedings. Ext.P6 is a proceeding obtained fraudulently, as it is evident that the name of the school is shown as ‘individual’ at the place of a ‘corporate’ which ought to have been entered therein, since the school is managed by a Trust. Similarly, when a dispute exists regarding the change of management, in column No.9 of Ext.P6, it is shown that there is no dispute. In column No.10, it is stated that the present Manager was removed on 16.02.2024 by a no-confidence motion passed by the Executive Committee of the Trust, when no such Executive Committee was held on that day. Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent is also a cryptic order without reasoning. The learned Single Judge failed to properly analyse the issue of entrustment of administration to the District Educational Officer in Ext.P14 order, which was continued in Ext.P20 also. The order passed by this Court in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a fresh election is also fundamentally wrong. The consent given for conducting the election by the appellants was only to make peace and to avoid prolonged litigation. According to the learned Senior counsel, in Ext.P15 judgment dated 30.09.2024 in C.M.A. No.22 of 2024 by the Additional District Court, Mavelikara, a detailed analysis of the issue was made and the court injuncted respondents 1 to 9 therein from acting or representing as the Executive Committee members and office bearers of the 1 st appellant Trust and further restrained them from interfering or obstructing in anyway with the general administration of the affairs of the 1 st appellant Trust. The learned Single Judge failed to note these aspects in its right perspective. The learned Single Judge failed to note these aspects in its right perspective. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that there is no provision in the KERALA EDUCATION RULES , for the 2 nd respondent to appoint the District Educational Officer as the Manager of the school. Under the 1 st appellant Trust, there is only one school, and the 2 nd appellant was the Manager till Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, is highly warranted. 7. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent would submit that the learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions of the parties in detail in the impugned judgment and held that in Ext.P20 order the 2 nd respondent rightly found that there is no illegality in the decision of the 2 nd respondent to appoint the District Educational Officer as temporary Manager of the school, till a decision is taken in the dispute by the Civil court. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P20 order was passed by the 2 nd respondent considering the fact that a civil dispute is pending pertaining to the management of the subject school. Only till a decision is taken by the Civil Court, considering the present situation, the District Educational Officer was ordered to be continued as Manager. Hence, no interference is needed by this Court on the impugned judgment. 9. The dispute in the instant case pertains to the management of the school run by the 1 st appellant Trust. When the appellants say that by the Special General Body meeting held on 18.02.2024, a new Executive committee was selected and expelled the 4 th respondent, the 4 th respondent would contend that the Executive Committee met on 16.02.2024, appointed the 4 th respondent as the Manager of the school by expelling the 2 nd appellant. It was on the basis of the decision of the Executive Committee that was claimed by the 4 th respondent as taken place on 16.02.2024, Ext.P6 application was submitted by the 4 th respondent for change of management. However, on going through Ext.P6, it is evident that the 3 rd respondent has not passed a speaking order in that application. It was on the basis of the decision of the Executive Committee that was claimed by the 4 th respondent as taken place on 16.02.2024, Ext.P6 application was submitted by the 4 th respondent for change of management. However, on going through Ext.P6, it is evident that the 3 rd respondent has not passed a speaking order in that application. There are some facts stated in Ext.P6 against the admitted position as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, such as the name of the school is shown as ‘individual’ instead of ‘corporate’, and also that there is no dispute in the change of management. Similarly, the entry that the present Manager was removed on 16.02.2024 by a no-confidence motion unanimously passed by the Executive Committee of the Trust, as entered in Ext.P6 is also under dispute between the parties. 10. In pursuance to the direction of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C)No.15662 of 2024, the challenge against Ext.P6 order was considered by the Director General of Education and by Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024, Ext.P6 order was stayed, holding that the said order was passed without following the procedure. The contention of the appellants is that since Ext.P6 order was stayed by Ext.P14 order, the Director of General Education ought to have permitted the 2 nd appellant to continue as the Manager of the school. However, as held by the learned Single Judge, a reading of Ext.P14 order of the Director of General Education, it is evident that the appointment of the District Educational Officer is only as a temporary measure. 11. The issue pertaining to the management of the Trust is admittedly under consideration in a suit instituted between the parties as O.S.No.149 of 2024 before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. Apart from that, in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024 pending before this Court, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed on consensus to conduct a fresh election. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent made available for the perusal of this Court the report submitted by the Returning Officer/Commissioner appointed by this Court by the order dated 24.01.2025 in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024. From that report, we notice that the process of preparing a draft voters list of the members of the Trust is in progress. 12. From that report, we notice that the process of preparing a draft voters list of the members of the Trust is in progress. 12. In Ext.P17 judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P.(C)No.25455 of 2024, the challenge was against Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024. The learned Single Judge while directing the Director of General Education to pass orders in the appeal preferred against Ext.P14 order held at paragraph 17 that the prayer of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 23652 of 2024 was to entrust the administration of the school with the Deputy Director of Education, for an impartial and fair administration, till the appeal is finalised. Since the Deputy Director manages a significant workload, the Director has entrusted the administration of the school with the District Educational Officer for its smooth functioning. The decision cannot be said to be irrational or perverse. Observing as above, the learned Single Judge held that there is nothing wrong with Ext.P14 order passed by the Director, warranting interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge further directed the 2 nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal preferred by the appellants and accordingly, Ext.P20 order was passed by the 2 nd respondent. However, on going through Ext.P20, we notice that the said order is a cryptic one and passed without even considering the rival contentions raised by the parties concerned. It is true that a civil dispute is pending between the parties pertaining to the management of the Trust. Even then, when an appeal is maintainable under Chapter III, Rule 4 of the KERALA EDUCATION RULES against the decision of the District Educational Officer before the 2 nd respondent, he ought to have considered the rival contentions and passed a reasoned order. The learned Single Judge did not consider these aspects in their proper perspective. In such circumstances, the instant writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent and directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the appeal filed by the appellants in the light of the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. Whether the District Educational Officer can continue as the Manager of the school or whether the 2nd appellant who was previously holding the post of Manager should be permitted to officiate as the Manager, since Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024 stayed Ext.P6 order of the District Educational Officer allowing the change of Manager till a decision is taken in the Civil suit, is also left open to be decided in that proceedings.