IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15163 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAVITHRI.P, W/O. LATE V.K.SUKUMARAN KIDAVU, GOVARDHANAM, CHEEKKILODE.P.O. ATHOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. 4. T.BABURAJ, HEADMASTER, CHEEKILODE AMLP SCHOOL, CHEEKILODE.P.O. KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI DILIP MOHAN, R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 15163 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of late V.K. Sukumaran Kidavu, the manager of Cheekilode AMLP School. He is survived by the petitioner and daughter. On his death, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for change of management. She has submitted the same under Rule 5 A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. It was so submitted under the belief that the change of management would involve change of ownership as well. On its receipt, it was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the competent authority i.e., the first respondent. Subsequent to the submission of the said application, the petitioner has realized that the change of management, in the facts of the case, would not involve change of ownership in view of the decision of this Court reported in SOMANATHA PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA (2007(1) KLT 127. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as it involves only change of management the application has to be considered by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the approval of the 4th respondent as Manager of Wpc No.15163/2010 2 the School as per Ext.P7 order of the 3rd respondent. That apart, the petitioner has another grievance i.e., with respect to the alleged action on the part of the 4th respondent in fabricating the signature of her husband, the late Manager. Ext.P9 is the complaint filed by the petitioner in that behalf before the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) with copy to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, no action was taken thereon either by the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Vigilance) or by the second respondent. This writ petition has been filed for redressing the aforesaid grievances. 2. After the institution of this Writ petition the petitioner has filed Ext.P10 before the 1st respondent with request to return Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner with liberty to file fresh application before the 3rd respondent. In fact, even without waiting for the reply on the next day itself viz., on 4.6.2010 the petitioner has submitted a separate application viz., Ext.P11 before the 3rd respondent requesting for approval of change of management making it clear that change of management does not involve change of ownership. As noticed hereinbefore, in Ext.P4 application the petitioner has stated that the change of management involves change of Wpc No.15163/2010 3 ownership. It is now, pending before the first respondent. It is in the meanwhile that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 before the first respondent and then Ext.P11 before the 3rd respondent. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, there cannot be any doubt that the first respondent has to take a decision in the matter. The petitioner has filed Ext. P10 before the first respondent with a request to return the application originally submitted viz., Ext.P4 and then filed Ext.P11 before the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the decision on Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate steps in the matter. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner made as per Ext.P9 complaint, the petitioner may resort to appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma // true copy// P.A to Judge