IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11846 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.569/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE S.N.EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST (REGD), CHENTRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 687, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI K.V.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 62 YEARS,SON OF LATE SHRI VELAYUDHAN, (RESIDING AT KOLLARA HOUSE, P.O.EDAMUTTAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT). 2. SUSEELA, PRINCIPAL, S.N.VIDYA BHAVAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHENTRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 687. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN SMT.P.SHYNI SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW SRI.ABDUL MAJEED SRI.GIRISH SRI.N.NIRUP KUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED SOHAIL KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUCHIND, SON OF PULLATT NARAYANAN, VALAPPAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SURESH, SON OF KOCHUVEETTIL SUBRAMANIAN, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. VIKAS, SON OF CHAKKALAKKAL VELUKKUTTY, VALAPPAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. FAISAL, SON OF EDASSERY ABDUL JABBAR, CHOOLOORU DESOM, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 5. ANVAR, SON OF PUTHIYAVEETTIL MUHAMMED, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. WP(C) NO.11846/2010 2 6. RAGHAVAN, SON OF CHANGARAMKULATH KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 7. MEERA SURESH BABU,W/O.VALIPPARAMBIL SURESH BABU, MATHILAKAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 8. SUDHEER, SON OF KOLLARA GOPALAN, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 9. SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF THEKKINEDATH NADARAJAN MASTER, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R4 & R8 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R4 & R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11846 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners before me are respondents/defendants in I.A.No.1196 of 2008 in O.S.No.569 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kodungallur. That was a suit filed by the respondents seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioners claiming and realising enhanced rate of fee. Learned Munsiff as per order on I.A.No.1196 of 2008 granted an interim order of injunction against such realisation. Later there was an order passed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P12 permitting the students to deposit the fee at the pre-revised rate in the court. That order is challenged by the respondents/defendants in I.A.No.1196 of 2008 in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying that Ext.P12, order may be set aside. I am told that pursuant to Ext.P12, order certain deposits have been made in the court concerned. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court passed an interim order on 07.04.2010 after considering the contentions raised by both sides and ultimately directed that “..............It is only appropriate to direct the students to pay the fee at the school office and get the amount deposited in the court refunded.” 2. Interim order of injunction passed on I.A.No.1196 of 2008 is not under challenge in this proceeding and what is sought to be set aside is only Ext.P12, order permitting the students to deposit fee at the pre-revised rate in WP(C) No.11846/2010 2 the court concerned. Learned counsel for petitioners highlighted the difficulties being experienced by the school authorities on account of deposit in court. According to the learned counsel, it is from the fee realised from the students that the teachers and non-teaching staff are to be paid their salary. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that it was only because the school authorities did not receive the fee at the pre-revised rate that the amount had to be deposited as per court order. 3. Whatever that be, there is an order which directs respondents herein to pay the fee at the pre-revised rate at the school office and get refund of the amount if any deposited in court. There is no reason why that order should be interfered with. Respondents are bound to pay the fee at the pre- revised rate, each individual student paying the amount due from him at the office of the school. What can be done is to grant some time to the respondents to do so. Having regard to the difficulties expressed by the learned counsel for respondents I direct that the Individual students shall pay the fee payable by them at the pre-revised rate at the school office on or before 29.05.2010. It will be open to the respondents to seek withdrawal of the amount if any deposited in court as permitted by this Court on 07.04.2010. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks