IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15515 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- HOLY CROSS L.P.SCHOOL,KURISUPARA, VATTAYAR,IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,IDUKKI. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15515/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.1977/09/G. EDN. DTD. 23/05/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 15/06/05. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 04/07/03. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15515 of 2009-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the Manager of an unrecognised school, challenging the second limb of clause 4 of Ext.P1 circular issued by the Government, directing the Department authorities to take prosecution steps against the unrecognised schools. 2. It is submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader that the stipulations under the very same Government Order were upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Shafeek and others v. State of Kerala and others (2009 (2) KHC 559). A reading of the judgment shows that on behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General submitted that the State will not be taking prosecution steps against the schools concerned. With regard to the continuous functioning of such type of schools, various directions have been issued in the said judgment. 3. In the light of the above judgment, it is made clear that clause 4 of Ext.P1 as regards prosecution steps will not be invoked against the petitioner. But, this will not stand in the way of the department initiating any other legal steps. wpc 15515/2009 2 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the application submitted by the petitioner for recognition, may be considered by the authorities concerned. This is a matter which the petitioner will have to move the department concerned. It is pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that only when a notification is issued, such an application can be entertained. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/