IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 233 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.35699/2009 DATED 2.2.2010 .................... APPELLANT: 5TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------- V.AMINA, D/O.LATE T.V.AMAD, UPPLICHALIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.PAKKU, S/O.LATE T.V.AMAD, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKRA. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.ABDULLA, S/O.T.V.AMAD, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. V.AJMAL HAKKEM, S/O.LATE V.POCKER @ ABOOBACKER, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. WA No.233/2010 7. V.RUKHIYA, D/O.LATE T.V.AMAD, PERINGADU HOUSE, P.O.FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. V.ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.LATE T.V.AMAD, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R1 SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R5 TO R8 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.233/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 5th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. She challenges an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2.2.2010. According to her, the interim relief prayed for in the Writ Petition was to keep pending the consideration of Ext.P5 revision till Ext.P11 bye-laws of the Corporate Educational Agency are approved by the Director of Public Instruction. But, the learned Judge passed an interim order concerning the provisional arrangement for management of the school. So, according to the appellant, the interim relief granted has nothing to do with the interim relief sought by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting party respondents and also the learned senior Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent WA No.233/2010 - 2 - submitted that in fact he has moved an Interlocutory Application seeking a direction to make interim arrangements for management of the school. In fact, the order might have been passed, taking note of that prayer in the I.A., it is submitted. 3. We notice that the said I.A. or the prayers therein are not mentioned in the impugned interim order. But, the said order has been passed on the interim relief sought in the Writ Petition. The order has nothing to do with the interim relief sought. Therefore, the interim order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner will be free to move appropriate Interlocutory Applications, seeking appropriate interim reliefs. The interference with the interim order by us will not affect his rights in this regard. In other words, we have not mentioned anything on the merits of his case. WA No.233/2010 - 3 - The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.