IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9370 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. C.H.MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST, (REG.NO.129/02) P.O. KANHIRODE, KANNUR-670 592, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY T.P.ABDULLA. 2. K.UMMER MUSALIYAR, KUNNUMBRATH HOUSE, P.O.KALLIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SMT.C.C.JANCY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9370 of 2006(M --------------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 1.6.02 IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY of the NOTIFICATION DATED 10.2.06 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 18.2.06 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE DETAILED MAP OF PADIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT ------------------------------------- EXT.R3 (A). COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) N.1904/06/G.EDN. DATED 9.5.2006. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 9370 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T By Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent-Director of Public Instruction identified Ward No. 13 of Padiyoor Panchayath in Kannur District for opening of a high school and objections were called for as per the said notification. But, even before the last date fixed for receipt of objection, namely, 10.3.2006, the 1st respondent-Government of Kerala by a decision dated 8.3.2006 decided to discontinue the procedure for arriving at the final list as contemplated under Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “1. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notification and to finalise the list of areas by resorting to the procedure contemplated in sub rule (2) to (4) of rule 2 of Chapter V KER. 2. A declaration to the effect that the first respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to issue a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to stop the procedural formalities at the stage of rule 2(2) (Chapter V KER) notification issued by the third respondent as per Ext.P 2.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of Rule 2B (2) of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules, after initiation of the proceedings for grant of new schools under Rule 2A of Chapter V, the Government can stop the exercise only in the larger interest of the State. According to the petitioner, the only W.P(C) No. 9370 of 2006 -: 2 :- reason stated by the Government to cancel the exercise is the declaration of election, which cannot be stated to be a reason for cancelling the exercise as contemplated in Rule 2B(3). The petitioner would also contend that that reason is also not a genuine reason since the election was declared only on 1.3.2006. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents taking the stand that subsequent to the issue of Ext.P2, the Government has taken a policy decision not to start any new schools or to upgrade any existing schools and it is in consonance with that policy decision that it was decided to discontinue the process initiated under Rule 2A of Chapter V of the KER. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The school in question is in the aided sector. So, naturally, if a school is sanctioned, the Government has to bear the expenses for payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the school. Certainly, the Government can take a policy decision to grant or not to grant schools in the State for a particular year. Rule 2B(3) reads as follows: “2B. Review of orders by Government. (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) Notwithstanding any of the provisions contained in these rules, even if cases where steps under rule 2A of Chapter V, are completed, Government shall not be obliged to take further steps commencing from rule II, and Government shall be at liberty to stop the exercise at any stage, if they feel that it is in the public interest or in the larger interest of the State, or in the interest of the policy that is pursued by Government, and pass such orders as Government deems fit under the circumstances.” W.P(C) No. 9370 of 2006 -: 3 :- From the Rule, it is abundantly clear that the Government is empowered to cancel the exercise initiated under Section 2A at any point of time in public interest as a policy of the State. Insofar as in this case, the decision of the Government to discontinue the exercise initiated by Ext.P2 is as a policy decision, I do not think that this Court can interfere with that policy decision. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/