IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 485 of 2008(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15852/2007 Dated 31/05/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- VASUMATHI, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.MIJI JOHN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. A.KRISHNAVENI, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECREARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 6. A.LALIDA DAS, KALINDI SREENIVASAPURAM P.O., VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. A. VENUGOPAL, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM. 8. A. UDAYAKUMARI, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU FOR R2 TO R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This review petition which is directed against the judgment in WPC 15882/07, has been filed after obtaining leave since the review petitioner was not a party in the above writ petition. 2. The above writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, (Smt.A. Krishnaveni) praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the District Educational Officer, Kollam not to approve the appointment of Smt.A.Lalitha Das as Joint Manager of Chembakassery Schools, pursuant to her election with the support extended by Smt.A. Udayakurmari,7th respondent in the Writ Petition. 3. It may at once be noticed that the review petitioner, the writ petitioner, Smt.A.Lalitha Das and Smt.A.Udayakumari are sisters. Their father, late Sri.Achuthan, had established the three schools in question. Sri.Achuthan had two wives, namely Smt.Kunjikutty and Smt.Devayani. Smt.Kunjikutty has six children and Smt.Devayani had five. There arose some dispute between the two groups about the right of management of the schools. The R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 2 said dispute was settled through a decree passed by the civil court. Under the said decree, it was agreed by the two groups that the schools would be managed by two joint managers, one each to be elected from the two groups. 4. The dispute lingered on further, and it was in the said backdrop, the above writ petition along with WP(C) No.15494/07 was instituted. These two writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment on 31st May 2007. 5. The inter-group rivalry has now apparently transformed in to an intra group acrimony among Kunjikutty’s children. As directed by this Court in an earlier writ petition, Smt.Kunjikutty’s children, namely, Smt.Krishna Veni, Vasumathi(Review Petitioner), Lalitha Das, Ashokan, Baburaj and Udayakumari had appeared before the District Educational Officer, Kollam in order to elect the joint manager from their group. In the said election, Smt.Krishaveni got the support of her sister, Vasumathy,(the review petitioner) and Asokan. Whereas, Smt.Lalitha Das was supported by the other two, namely, Smt.Udayakumari and Sri.Baburaj. Thus there was a tie. Therefore, the District R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 3 Educational Officer, in his order dated 29th August, 2006 took the view that Smt.Krishnaveni and Smt.Lalitha Das would be eligible to act as Joint Manager from the group of Kunjikutty, for six months each, during 2006-07. 6. In the other writ petition, Viz WP(C) No.15494/07, The petitioner, Smt.Lalitha Das, sought for a direction to the District Educational Officer to appoint her as the Joint Manger from Kunjikutty’s group in terms of the election. The above two writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 31st May, 2007 with the following observations/directions: “5. When these writ petitions had come up for consideration on the previous occasion, learned counsel for the petitioners were requested to explore the possibility of a settlement. It is heartening to note that in response to the suggestion made by this Court, the counsel on either side have gracefully come forward with a compromise formula. Obviously, the parties have risen to the occasion. They have agreed that this unnecessary imbroglio be swept under the carpet so that a cordial atmosphere prevails among the members of the educational agency. 6. Therefore, without going into the rival contentions, the R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 4 following directions are issued as agreed by the learned counsel at the Bar. It is assured by the learned counsel on either side that the parties have agreed to the terms stated hereunder: (a) For the first term of six months of the academic year starting from June 1, 2007-08, Smt. A. Krishnaveni from Kunjikutty's group and Sri. A. Venugopal from Devayani's group will function as Joint Managers. The term of Smt. Krishnaveni will expire on December 31, 2007, since she has been elected by her group only for six months. But Sri. A. Venugopal may be entitled to continue, since he is authorised to represent his group till May 31,2008. (b) Smt. A. Lalitha Das from Kunjikutty's group and Sri. A. Venugopal will be the Joint Managers of the school from January 1, 2008 till May 31, 2008. 7. In case dispute persists between the two sub groups in Smt. Kunjikutty's group, it is agreed by the parties that the sub group of Smt. A. Lalitha Das will get the benefit of managership of the school along with the nominee of Devayani's group during the first half of the next academic year 2008-09 and the second half will be shared by the nominee of Smt. Krishnaveni's sub group along with the representative of Smt. Devayani's group. This rotation shall continue in the coming years also if the difference of opinion persists in Kunjikutty's group. R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 5 The Controlling Officer shall pass appropriate orders approving the appointment of joint managers in the above terms. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. 7. It is contended by the review petitioner that she was not a party to any kind of consensus or compromise. She was not a party in WP(C) No.15852/07 and therefore it cannot be said that any compromise would be binding on her. It is the further contention of the review petitioner that she had not received any notice in WP(C) No.15494/07. The writ petitions were disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the main contestant/respondent, namely, Smt.A.Krishnaveni. 8. The grievance of the review petitioner appears to be that the directions issued by this Court in the common judgment, particularly the one contained in paragraph 7, will be prejudicial to her right and claim in the management of the school. Learned counsel contends that the election made by Smt.Kunjikutty’s group was by itself against the terms of Ext.P1 bylaws of the school. I do not propose to deal with the above contention at this stage. The R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 6 common judgment was passed on the basis of the consensus arrived at among the parties. The primary concern as reflected in the judgment was to see that the rivalry among the members of the managing committee of the school did not hamper the functioning of the school. If the review petitioner wants to carry on the fight, she can choose to do so. There is nothing in the judgment which would take away her right. 9. Paragraph 7 in the judgment was intended only to ensure that the group rivalry in Kujikutty’s group which had got itself divided into two sub groups, did not create any uncertainty in the management of the school. As mentioned earlier, a compromise decree was passed by the civil court entrusting the management to two joint managers to be elected by the two groups comprising the children born in the two wives of late Sri.Achuthan. Since this Court had not considered the legality of the order passed by the District Educational Officer or the validity of the election held by the members of Kunjikutty's group at the office of the District Educational Officer, the apprehension now aired by the review petitioner is totally misconceived. R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 7 10. Before parting with the judgment, it has to be mentioned that, the petitioner could not have been unaware of the developments that took place before this Court at the time when the common judgment was passed. Any how the long delay of more than 300 days was condoned only with a view to allay fears or apprehensions of the review petitioner. Yet again, I do not propose to make any further comment in the matter. With the above observations/clarifications, the review petition is closed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE ttb R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 8 R.P. No. 485 OF 2008 9