IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 OP.No. 20464 of 1997(J) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.K.PREMADAS, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. (DIED) ADDL. 2. GIRIJA PREMADAS, W/O.LATE K.K.PREMADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. “ 3. HONEY.K.PREMADAS, D/O.LATE K.K.PREMADAS, AGED 19 YEARS, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. “ 4. HAPPY.K.PREMADAS, D/O. LATE K.K.PREMADAS, AGED 12 YEARS, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTEDBY HER MOTHER GIRIJA PREMADAS. (ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 9.7.2010 IN O.P.) BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, P.O.CHANTHRAPPINNI, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.THALIKULAM, CHERKARA, TRICHUR. (DIED) ADDL.3. AMBUJAKSHY, W/O. LATE K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.THALIKULAM, CHERKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. “ 4. BEENA BALAKRISHNAN, D/O. LATEK.K.SOMASUNDARAM KALLUVATHUCKAL HOUSE, CHIRACKAPAREKAL.P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. OP.No. 20464 of 1997(J) 2 ADDL.5. BABU, S/O. LATE K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.THALIKULAM, CHERKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. “ 6. BINDHU CHANDRAN, D/O.LATE K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, KIZHAKKOOTTIYIL HOUSE, P.O.VALAPPAD, TRICHUR. “ 7. BINNY SANTHOSH, D/O.LATE K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, PALLIYIL HOUSE, TRICHUR. “ 8. BINI SUHAS, D/O. LATE K.K.SOMASUNDARAM, KALLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KANDAR, TRICHUR. (ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.3.2003 IN C.M.P.NO.9253 OF 2003) R1 BY G.P.SMT.SMITHA. R3 TO R8 BY ADV.SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.36693 OF 1997 IN O.P.NO.20464 OF 1997 DISMISSED 9.7.2010 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AEO, VALAPAD. DT. 2.1.1997. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AEO, VALAPAD DT. 10.20.97. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D/10831/97 DT. 12.5.1998 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- O.P.No.20464 of 1997 ---------------------------- Dated 9th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The main reliefs prayed for in this original petition are as follows: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Ist respondent to pass orders in Ext.P1 and P2 representations without any further delay. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Ist respondent to take action against the 2nd respondent under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Education Act by cancelling the registered sale deed No.679/78 of Triprayar Sub Registry executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of Sri.Subhashithan, S/o.Iyyani Koroth Kunjikalavan, Cherkkara, Talikulam P.O. and withholding the future grant payable to the school. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Ist respondent not to permit the 2nd respondent to function as Manager of Central LP School, Nattika North in future.” It is conceded at the Bar that the second respondent is no more. The request in Exts.P1 and P2 representations is to prevent the second respondent from functioning as the Manager of an aided school. Now that the second respondent is no more, reliefs 1 and 3 cannot be granted. The petitioner who filed the original petition is also no more though his legal heirs are impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. The dispute relates to the management of an aided school. The educational agency and the Manager was the mother of the petitioner O.P.No.20464/1997 2 and the second respondent. The second prayer is to cancel the sale deed stated to have been executed by the second respondent in favour of third parties whereby lands belonging to the school were assigned to them. The purchasers are not on the party array. Therefore, the second relief also cannot be granted. In my opinion, the remedy of the additional petitioners in such circumstances is to institute a suit in the competent civil court challenging the sale deeds executed by the deceased second respondent with proper persons on the party array. As regards the management of the school also their remedy according to me is to institute a suit in the competent court for framing a scheme for the management of the school, in view of the fact that the legal heirs of the late educational agency/Manager have not been able to come to an agreement regarding the management of the school. With the above observation, the original petition is closed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS