JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The 1 st petitioner is an Educational Trust and the 2 nd petitioner is its Secretary and the Manager of the Institutions under the Trust. The writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside Ext.P20 and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to approve the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager of PKK Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary School, Kayamkulam. 2. The petitioners state that the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the Secretary-cum-Manager in the General Body meeting held on 26.10.2019. A meeting of the General Body of the Trust was scheduled on 18.02.2024. The 4 th respondent and his men including a few office bearers of the Trust called an Executive Committee meeting of the Trust on 16.02.2024. They claimed that a decision is taken to expel the 2 nd petitioner and to appoint the 4 th respondent as the Manager. The petitioners state that such a decision is taken without authority or jurisdiction. Power to expel a Member is vested only with the General Body. The meeting allegedly held on 16.02.2024 is not as per bye-laws. 3. In the General Body meeting held on 18.02.2024, the General Body expelled the 4 th respondent and others. Ext.P5(a) proposal dated 27.04.2024 was submitted to the 3 rd respondent-DEO along with application for change of Management. Ext.P6 is the proceedings appointing the 4 th respondent as the Manager endorsed by the 3 rd respondent-DEO. Ext.P6 application submitted by the 4 th respondent for the transfer of Management contains erroneous information. Ext.P6 is a fraudulent application, contend the petitioners. 4. Ext.P6 was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15662/2024. This Court passed Ext.P5 judgment in the writ petition directing the 2 nd respondent-Additional Director of Public Instructions to pass orders in the statutory Appeal. The petitioners also filed a suit in the civil court. The civil court granted Ext.P8 interim injunction dated 09.05.2024. Later, the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam vacated the interim injunction order dated 09.05.2024 as per Ext.P12 order dated 25.06.2024 in OS No.149/2024. 5. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.23652/2024 seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to put the Deputy Director of Education in charge of the administration of the School, appointing him as Manager. The 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024 holding that Ext.P6 is not a speaking order. The 2 nd respondent stayed the operation of Ext.P6. 5. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.23652/2024 seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to put the Deputy Director of Education in charge of the administration of the School, appointing him as Manager. The 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024 holding that Ext.P6 is not a speaking order. The 2 nd respondent stayed the operation of Ext.P6. Since Ext.P6 has been stayed as per Ext.P14, the 2 nd petitioner should have been permitted to continue as Manager. However, by Ext.P14 order, the 3 rd respondent-DEO was put in charge of Manager. 6. Ext.P14 was challenged filing writ petition to the extent it appointing the DEO as the Manager. While so, the appeal filed against Ext.P12 was allowed by the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara granting an order of injunction restraining the 4 th respondent from acting as office bearer of the Trust. The 4 th respondent was injuncted from interfering in the administration of the Trust as per Ext.P15 judgment dated 30.09.2024 in CMA No.22/2024 of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. 7. W.P.(C) No.25455/2024 was disposed of by this Court directing the 2 nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal filed by the petitioner. A hearing was conducted on 18.11.2024. The 2 nd respondent has now issued Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner and permitting the DEO to continue as Manager of the School. Ext.P20 order is illegal and arbitrary, contend the petitioners. 8. The petitioners submit that Ext.P6 application for change of Management was submitted by the 4 th respondent suppressing material facts and providing false information. The 2 nd respondent, in Ext.P14, has held that the 3 rd respondent had not followed due procedure while approving the 4 th respondent as the Manager. Therefore, as a natural consequence, the 2 nd petitioner is entitled to continue as the Manager of the School. The proposal for approving the 2 nd petitioner as Manager is pending. Ext.P20 has been passed without adverting to any of these facts. 9. In Ext.P15 order, the District Court has categorically found that the 4 th respondent has no right and that no valid election was conducted as claimed by the 4 th respondent. The District Court found that the Executive Committee held on 16.02.2024 was only an attempt to defeat the General Body scheduled to be held on 18.02.2024. 9. In Ext.P15 order, the District Court has categorically found that the 4 th respondent has no right and that no valid election was conducted as claimed by the 4 th respondent. The District Court found that the Executive Committee held on 16.02.2024 was only an attempt to defeat the General Body scheduled to be held on 18.02.2024. The 2 nd respondent has conveniently omitted to consider the same and ordered to appoint the DEO as the Manager. 10. The petitioner would point out that an Educational Officer can be appointed as Manager only when there exists a Management dispute. A stranger raising a claim will not create a Management dispute. The 4 th respondent has not even challenged his expulsion from the Trust. Therefore, the 4 th respondent is a stranger. There cannot be a Management dispute at the instance of the 4 th respondent. 11. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala [1986 KHC 467], the Senior Counsel argued that where the problems are far too complex, requiring the taking of evidence and the determination of difficult legal questions, they can certainly hold their hands and await appropriate decisions from civil courts, if they are satisfied that there would be no vacuum in the management of the School in the meanwhile. What is important is that there should be someone to function as Manager under the control of the educational authorities and that that someone should be only chosen by a person who is prima facie at least, the owner of the institution. The question of real ownership and a final determination of the same, in so far as they amount to recognition of civil rights are out of bounds for the educational authorities and the Government. 12. The 4 th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4 th respondent submitted that he is the duly elected Secretary of the 1 st petitioner-Trust. The Executive Committee meeting held on 16.02.2024 passed a No Confidence Motion and removed the 2 nd petitioner from the post of Secretary. The 4 th respondent, who was the Joint Secretary of the Trust, was unanimously elected as the Secretary. Being the Secretary, as per Ext.P1 bye-laws, the 4 th respondent became the Manager of all educational institutions under the Trust. The 4 th respondent, who was the Joint Secretary of the Trust, was unanimously elected as the Secretary. Being the Secretary, as per Ext.P1 bye-laws, the 4 th respondent became the Manager of all educational institutions under the Trust. Application was submitted to the 3 rd respondent to approve the change of Management. The application was allowed on 01.04.2024. 13. The 4 th respondent submitted that the 2 nd respondent is empowered to consider the validity of change of Management afresh. The 2 nd respondent has passed Ext.P20 order allowing the DEO to function as temporary Manager due to the pendency of the civil dispute. 14. The 4 th respondent further submitted that the question as to who is the Secretary of the Trust is the subject matter of OP(C) No.2753/2024 and all parties to the said OP(Civil) have agreed for fresh election to the Trust. Advocate P. Gopal was appointed as the Commissioner and the election process has started. Preliminary verification of records for conducting the election was done on 28.02.2025. The new Secretary who will be elected in the coming election alone can be appointed as the Manager of the educational institutions under the Trust. Therefore, no interference is called for in Ext.P20 order. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 16. As regards the administration of the Trust, civil litigations are pending. As regards appointment of Manager of PKK Sahib Memorial High School, various orders have been passed by the educational authorities and the last of such order Ext.P20 passed by the Additional Director (General) of General Education dated 26.11.2024 is under challenge in this writ petition. 17. The petitioner has filed OS No.149/2024 in the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam seeking a declaration that the decision of the Executive Committee on 16.02.2024 selecting the 4 th respondent as Secretary/Manager is bad in law and for a declaration that the decision taken by the Special General Body meeting on 18.02.2024 is valid. The Vacation Court, Alappuzha passed an ad interim ex-parte order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and other plaintiffs. The ad interim injunction application was, however, later dismissed on 25.06.2024. The petitioners filed CMA No.22/2024 in the District Court, Mavelikkara. The Vacation Court, Alappuzha passed an ad interim ex-parte order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and other plaintiffs. The ad interim injunction application was, however, later dismissed on 25.06.2024. The petitioners filed CMA No.22/2024 in the District Court, Mavelikkara. CMA No.22/2024 was allowed on 30.09.2024 and restrained the 4 th respondent and others from obstructing or interfering with general administration of the Trust. The 4 th respondent and others, thereupon, filed OP(C) No.2753/2024 against the judgment of the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara. This Court, in OP(C) No.2753/2024, has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct election to the Executive Committee of the Trust. OP(C) No.2753/2024 is pending. 18. Ext.P6 application was filed before the District Educational Officer seeking to appoint the 4 th respondent as the Manager in the place of the 2 nd petitioner. The petitioner would contend that patently wrong information was given in Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, it was stated that the School is one run by an individual whereas in fact the School was run by a Corporate Agency. In Ext.P6, it was further wrongly indicated that there is no dispute in the Management. It was on the basis of wrong information that the DEO allowed Ext.P6 application and appointed the 4 th respondent as Manager. 19. The 2 nd petitioner filed Exts.P9 and P10 petitions before the Director of General Education. The Director of General Education passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024 holding that Ext.P6 is unsustainable since it is not a speaking order. The Director stayed Ext.P6 order, but at the same time, appointed the DEO as the temporary Manager of the School. The petitioners would submit that when Ext.P6 order of the DEO is stayed, automatically the 2 nd petitioner ought to have been permitted to continue as the Manager of the School. 20. Ext.P12 order was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25455/2024 to the extent the DEO was appointed as the Manager. The said writ petition directed the Director of General Education to pass final orders on the appeal. The Additional Director of General Education passed Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 upholding Ext.P12 order and the appointment of the District Educational Officer as temporary Manager of the School. 21. The said writ petition directed the Director of General Education to pass final orders on the appeal. The Additional Director of General Education passed Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 upholding Ext.P12 order and the appointment of the District Educational Officer as temporary Manager of the School. 21. The crux of the argument of the petitioners is that since the Director of General Education has passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024 staying Ext.P6 order of the DEO allowing change of Manager, the Director of General Education ought to have permitted status quo ante and ought to have permitted the 2 nd petitioner to continue as the Manager of the School. 22. A reading of Ext.P14 by which the Director of General Education has appointed DEO as the temporary Manager and Ext.P20 order of the Additional Director of General Education would show that the authorities were aware of the serious dispute with regard to the management of the Trust and that there were conflicting claims as regards appointment of Manager. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Mar Theophilus (Supra), the authorities held that the departmental authorities have no role in the matter of adjudication of civil disputes between the parties which are clearly out of the bounds of the Department. The Department cannot enter into issues pertaining to the conduct of elections to a public Trust, which is to be contested by the parties before a court of law. The authorities noted that disputes are pending before the civil courts. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 decided to appoint the DEO as the temporary Manager of the School. I do not find any illegality in the decision of the 2 nd respondent. Furthermore, I find that in OP(C) No.2753/2024, by consensus, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct election of office bearers of the Trust as per Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) orders. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P20 order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.