IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 675 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36560/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.GODAVARMAN THAMPURAN, PAKKATTU MADHOM, (JAYA VILAS), P.O.CHERUVALOOR, VIA KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHALAKUDY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, N.S.S.UNION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.675 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The appellant claimed that he was the educational agency of Native Lower Primary School, Koratty. Presently, the School is being managed by the third respondent. Therefore, the appellant moved for change of management, with change of ownership, under Rule 5A of Chapter III, Kerala Education Rules, before the Director of Public Instruction(for short, 'D.P.I.'). The D.P.I. rejected the application of the appellant, by Ext.P2 order. But, the said order was passed without hearing the appellant. So, this Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment, quashed the said order, and directed the D.P.I. to hear the appellant, and to take a fresh decision. 2. The appellant was heard. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 argument note also. But the D.P.I., without adverting to any of the points raised in Ext.P3, reiterated the stand taken by him in Ext.P2, and passed Ext.P4 order. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P4. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed that whether the WA NO.675/08 2 appellant has got right over the school and whether he should be treated as the educational agency of it, are civil disputes, which cannot be decided by the Director of Public Instruction. Therefore, the learned Judge took the view that the appellant should establish his claim before the competent civil court and till such time, in the interest of the school, the present arrangement should continue. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 4. We heard Sri.P.Ravindran, the learned senior counsel, who appeared for the appellant. He submitted that Ext.P4 order is illegal and improper, for not considering the contentions raised by the appellant in Ext.P3 argument note. This Court, while quashing Ext.P2, specifically directed the Director of Public Instruction to consider the contentions of the appellant on merits. Sine he has failed to do that while passing Ext.P4, the same is liable to be quashed, it is submitted. 5. Going by the materials on record, it would appear that the third respondent got the school from late Panampilly Raghava Menon, under a will executed by him. But, the appellant WA NO.675/08 3 would submit that the said Raghava Menon did not have any title or possession over the school, or its properties. So, the transferor's right to effect the transfer in favour of the third respondent, is disputed by the appellant. Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by him, we think, it is a matter, which should be decided by the civil court. In Ext.P4, various contentions raised in Ext.P3 may not have been specifically dealt with by the D.P.I. But, remand of the matter on that technical ground is going to be an empty formality, having regard to the nature of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, we are not impressed by the technical contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.675 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 20th January, 2010.