IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 807 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5102/2009 Dated 27/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/4th RESPONDENT: -------------- SR. JESSY, MOTHER SUPERIOR LITTLE FLOWER CONVENT, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7: --------------- 1. THE VICAR, THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ST. MARY'S CHURCH EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, NJARAKKAL 682 505, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. JOSE KACHAPPALLY, PRESIDNET, PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCATION, LITTLE FLOWER HIGH SCHOOL, NJARAKKAL 682 505, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 6. SR. VINCENT MARY, PROVINCIAL SUPERIOR, VIMALA PROVINCE CARMALITE PROVINCIAL HOUSE, KOVIL VATTOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM -35. 7. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ERNAKULAM SOUTH 8. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, NJARAKKAL 682 505 ERNAKULAM SOUTH, THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.807 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. Mr.V.A.Mohammed took notice for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader, Smt.R.Bindu, took notice for respondents 3 to 5, 7 and 8. Mr. Tony George Kannamthanam took notice for 6th respondent. 2. The appellant challenges the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5102/2009 on 27.3.2009. The Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4, 6 and 7 to refrain from effecting transfer of properties in respect of LFH School, Njarakkal including Ext.P3 series documents. ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pass order on Ext.P6 after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioners. W.A.No.807/2009 2 3. Apprehending that the appellant herein was going to transfer the properties of Little Flower Girls High School, Njarakkal, to third parties, the 2nd respondent has filed Ext.P6 representation before the District Educational Officer and thereafter the writ petition was filed seeking the above reliefs. If Ext.P6 is a statutory representation and the D.E.O. has statutory duty to consider the point raised in that representation the learned Single Judge could have ordered disposal of that representation and by that order the writ petition could have been closed. But, in this case, after hearing both sides the learned Single Judge issued a direction to the D.E.O. to consider the petition for approval of change of the Manager of the aforementioned School filed by the 6th respondent. The said respondent has appointed Sister Paula in the place of the appellant, it is submitted. That fact is seriously disputed by the appellant, though the learned senior counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that no valid dispute has been raised about it in the pleadings. The learned Single Judge by the interim order directed the D.E.O. to consider the application, for approving change of Manager, filed by the 6th respondent. The W.A.No.807/2009 3 appellant aggrieved by the said direction has filed this appeal. 4. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the direction issued goes beyond the relief sought in the writ petition. The interim relief granted does not have any nexus whatsoever with the final relief sought in the writ petition. Therefore, he prays for vacating the interim order. 5. The learned senior counsel, who appeared for the 6th respondent, submitted that the appellant has already been removed from the office of Mother Superior and therefore she can no longer hold the post of Manager. In other words, she does not have the locus standi to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal at her instance is not maintainable, it was submitted. 6. We considered the rival submissions made at the bar. We have no doubt in our mind that the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge goes beyond the scope of the final relief sought in the writ petition. If the contention of the 6th respondent W.A.No.807/2009 4 that the appellant has been removed from the post of Mother Superior of Little Flower Convent, Njarakkal, is correct, she may not have the necessary standing to maintain this appeal. But we think it is not proper for us to decide that dispute in this appeal. The same has to be adjudicated in appropriate other proceedings. So, keeping the contention of the 6th respondent in this regard open, we are allowing this appeal, as the order impugned in this appeal has nothing to do with the final relief sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps