IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20110 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.GOPI @ K.GOVI, ARUN NIVAS, KOOTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. NALINI P.K., W/O.KARUNAKARAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD P.O., THALASSERY. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOOTHUPARAMBA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 5. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20110/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1481/05 AND CONNECTED APPEALS. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 323/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.08. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20110 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The issue in this writ petition is regarding the management dispute of Mooriyad Central Upper Primary School. 2. The rival claimants were the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The dispute had reached this court and finally by Ext.P1 judgment in WA No.1481/05, this court relegated the parties to agitate their claims before the Civil Court. Petitioner submits that in pursuance thereof, he filed OS 323/05 before the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba. That suit was tried along with OS 58/06 and it is submitted that by Ext.P2 judgment, OS 323/05 was decreed with costs, declaring that the right of management of the school vested in the petitioner. 3. Petitioner submits that despite the decree of the Civil Court which has become final, consequential orders have not been passed by the 2nd respondent with the required consent from the 4th respondent. It is stated that urging this claim, he has filed Ext.P3 application before the 2nd respondent and in this writ petition the main complaint is regarding the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering and passing orders on Ext.P3. WPC 20110/08 :2 : 4. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba has become final, there is no reason why consequential orders shall not be passed. Since the matter is now pending before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall take up Ext.P3, consider the same and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that if any person is likely to be affected by the order on Ext.P3, notice shall be given to such persons before final orders are passed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp