IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2467 of 2009 ------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20635/2009 Dated 23/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHINMAYA MISSION EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST (KANNUR), KANHANGAD UNIT MANAGING COMMITTEE, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DIST,. 2. THE PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE, KANHANGAD UNIT, CHINMAYA EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST (KANNUR), KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DIST BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S)//PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------ 1. PUNDALIKA KAMATH, S/O. LATE H. VENKATESH KAMATH, COMPUTER TEACHER, ANANDA COMPOUND, NEAR AD BANK, MELANGOT, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL R2 BY ADV. SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2467 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 16th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The first respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the disciplinary action taken against him by the appellants. According to him, the present Committee managing the affairs of the school is not a properly constituted committee as provided under clause 20 of Ext.P3 bye-laws. Pointing out this aspect, the first respondent/writ petitioner preferred Ext.P5 petition before the second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the second respondent herein to W.A. No.2467 of 2009 - 2 - consider Ext.P5. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. 3. According to the appellants, the second respondent herein has no power or authority to go into the grievances raised in Ext.P5. Even assuming that the second respondent has any power, the same cannot be exercised at this intermediate stage, that is, when the disciplinary proceedings are pending. They also have a case that the contentions raised in Ext.P5 are totally unfounded. The learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that his specific case is that the appellants have no authority whatsoever to proceed against him and therefore, he moved the second respondent to redress his grievances. So, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the said officer to look into Ext.P5. 4. It is elementary that this Court will issue a writ of mandamus to an authority if it is shown that said authority W.A. No.2467 of 2009 - 3 - has failed to exercise a duty and the same creates a corresponding right in the applicant to seek performance of that duty. We have not been told under which statutory provision the second respondent herein has a duty to look into Ext.P5 and the first respondent has a legal right to the performance of that duty. In view of the above position, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the second respondent herein to look into Ext.P5 is unsustainable. Apart from that, even assuming that the second respondent has some power, it is neither proper nor just to ask the said officer to interfere in the pending disciplinary proceedings. If, ultimately the decision of the appellants goes against the writ petitioner, while working out his remedy against the adverse order, he can raise all his contentions, including lack of authority of the disciplinary authority, which has taken the action against him. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is reversed and the Writ Petition is W.A. No.2467 of 2009 - 4 - dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the contention of the first respondent that the disciplinary authority which has initiated action against him is not validly constituted and therefore, it has no power to take the disciplinary action. The contentions of both sides on that point are kept open. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)