IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33412 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOM THOMAS.P, AGED 64 YEARS, MANAGER, ST.THOMAS U.P.SCHOOL, PARANNUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 14. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 503. 4. DR.ANTO T.JOSEPH, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE NO.30/484, EAST BAZAR, OLLUR, THRISSUR - 680 306. 5. SRI.RAPHAEL T.JOSEPH, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, RANI AUTOMOBILES WORKSHOP KECHERY, THRISSUR - 680 501. ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R4,5 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R4,5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33412 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT As per Exhibit P9 order dated 29.8.1979 issued by the Director of Public Instruction, the petitioner was granted permission for transfer of management with ownership of St. Thomas U.P.School, Parannur under Rule 5A of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules. Respondents 4 and 5 are the children of Joseph George.T., who was the owner of the school and property. According to respondents 4 and 5, the right and title of their father in respect of the property and school remained with him till his death and that after his death, respondents 4 and 5 and others became the owners of the property and the school. According to respondents 4 and 5, Joseph George was the owner and Manager of the school. He appointed Tom Thomas, the petitioner in the Writ Petition, as the Manager of the school to run the school. The managership of Tom Thomas was approved by the Department. WPC No.33412/2010 2 2. According to respondents 4 and 5, Tom Thomas manipulated records and even transferred a portion of the property belonging to the school. Respondents 4 and 5 and others submitted Exhibit P10 (a) representation dated 20.2.2010 to the educational officers including the Director of Public Instruction. In Exhibit P10 (a), respondents 4 and 5 and others had highlighted their grievance. Respondents 4 and 5 filed W.P. (C) No.16926 of 2010 for a direction to dispose of the representation submitted by them before the Director of Public Instruction. That Writ Petition was disposed of as per Exhibit P7 judgment dated 2nd June 2010, directing the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of Exhibit P1 marked in that Writ Petition in accordance with law, after hearing all the affected parties. It is submitted that Exhibit P1 marked in W.P.(C)No.16926 of 2010 is Exhibit P10(a) marked in this Writ Petition. Exhibit P7 judgment would indicate that the contention of respondents 4 and 5, who were the petitioners in that Writ Petition, was that the application filed before the Director of Public Instruction was for change of management. WPC No.33412/2010 3 3. Subsequent to Exhibit P7 judgment, the Director of Public Instruction issued notice to the Writ Petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has not received copies of the relevant papers. The Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs : “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second respondent to restrain from conducting any hearing pursuant to Exhibit P5 without furnishing the petitioner copies of the petitions upon which the hearing is scheduled. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second respondent to restrain from conducting any hearing pursuant to Exhibit P5 upon the issue pertaining to the ownership of St.Thomas U.P. School, Parannur. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second respondent to restrain from conducting hearing pursuant to Exhibit P5 WPC No.33412/2010 4 upon the issues which could be decided only by Civil Court, after adducing evidence. (iv) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the change of management involving change of ownership was made in favour of Tom Thomas, the petitioner, as per Exhibit P9 order dated 29.8.1979. No appeal against that order was filed at any point of time. Exhibit P10(a) is not an application for change of management involving change of ownership. The Director of Public Instruction has no jurisdiction to review Exhibit P9 order and grant relief to respondents 4 and 5. It is also submitted that no particular relief is sought for Exhibit P10(a). No application was submitted by respondents 4 and 5 in the prescribed form for change of management involving change of ownership. It is also submitted that the questions raised by respondents 4 and 5 could WPC No.33412/2010 5 be agitated only in a properly constituted civil suit. Sri.Narayanan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that in Exhibit P10(a), respondents 4 and 5 have highlighted their grievance which include fraud, manipulation of records, sale of the property of the school and maladministration. It is also pointed out that the title of the school and its properties never vested with the petitioner and the petitioner has no title. Various contentions put forward in Exhibit P10(a) are within the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Instruction and he could take appropriate action in respect of those allegations. Even assuming that Exhibit P10 (a) is not an application for change of management involving change of ownership, the counsel submits that the appropriate reliefs could be granted by the Director of Public Instruction, taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I do not propose to consider the rival contentions put forward by the parties in this Writ Petition as it is unnecessary. WPC No.33412/2010 6 This Court directed the Director of Public Instruction as per Exhibit P7 judgment to consider the application/representation submitted by respondents 4 and 5 and others and to take appropriate decision. Going by Exhibit P7 judgment, the Director of Public Instruction is bound to comply with the same. Both the parties would be entitled to put forward all their contentions including the maintainability of the application, the authority of the Director of Public Instruction to consider the application, the jurisdictional aspects, whether a suit is necessary and all the other available contentions which they could take. The Director of Public Instruction shall consider all the objections and take appropriate decision and comply with Exhibit P7 judgment. Copies of all the documents submitted by respondents 4 and 5 and others shall be supplied to Tom Thomas, the petitioner. Both the parties should be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Director of Public Instruction shall take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition, copy of the counter WPC No.33412/2010 7 affidavit, reply affidavit and also certified copy of the judgment before the Director of Public Instruction. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl