IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 6513 of 2000(A) ----------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.S.S. COLLEGE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) SRI.P.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.R.SABU, FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 6513 of 2000(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.6.1997 IN O.P.NO. 8848 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PEN A2/26189/97/COLL.EDN DATED 5.11.1997 OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (Ms) 33/90/H.EDN. DATED 19.02.1991. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.02.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.4.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 19.5.1998 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 11.11.1998 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 01.02.1999 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) & R1(b) - A COPY OF THE G.O.(Ms.) NO. 33/90/H.EDN. DATED 19.2.1991 CORRECTED AS G.O.(Ms) NO. 33/91/H/EDN. DATED 19.2.1991 AS PER G.O.(Ms) NO. 48/91/H.EDN. EXT.R1(c) - A COPY OF THE G.O.(Ms.) NO. 257/98/H.EDN. DATED 4.3.1998. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== O.P.No.6513 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an educational agency running a private aided college. One Smt. L. Bharghavi Amma was the principal of the college who retired from service on 10.5.1986 on attaining 60 years of age. She was granted pensionary benefits. Subsequently the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur fixed a liability of Rs. 5,83,555.20 on the said Smt. L. Bharghavi Amma. The said Bharghavi Amma challenged the steps to recover the liability from her retirement benefits on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, since the liabilities were not fixed until 23.4.1994 where as the said Bharghavi Amma retired from service in 1986. The contention of Smt. Bharghavi Amma was accepted by this Court. Accordingly, this court directed the respondents therein which are the State and the Government officers to disburse the full pensionary benefits due to the said Smt.Bharghavi Amma, with arrears and 12% interest. Thereafter the Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur issued Ext.P2 order transferring the liabilities of the said O.P.No.6513 of 2000 - 2 - Bharghavi Amma to the petitioner, management. Ext.P2 is under challenge before me. 2. The petitioner's contention is that there is no provision of law anywhere for recovery of amounts due from a principal of an aided college from the management of the college. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the contention is that as per the direct payment agreement, the Government has issued Ext.R1(a) (which is same as Ext.P3) Government order which authorised transferring of such liability to the management. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to point out any provision of law either in the University statutes or in the KSR which makes the management of an aided college liable for amounts due from the principal of the college. As far as the management is concerned, they are not involved in any monetary transactions conducted by the principal of their college. The amounts collected as fees etc from the students by the principal are directly paid into the Treasury by the the principal. At no point of time the management of a college has any duty in respect of the same. The money belonging to the Government does not come to the O.P.No.6513 of 2000 - 3 - hands of the management at any time. The accounts of the college are also audited by the Deputy Director of education. In fact apart from making appointments of teachers and staff in the college and collecting maintenance allowance from the Government no other amounts are paid to the management either by the Government or by the principal. If any amounts are to be fixed as liability on the principal it is the Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Collegiate Education to do the same and to recover it from the principal. Law does not cast a duty in this respect also on the management. As such the management cannot be made liable for any amounts due from the principal. 6. Even going by Ext.R1(a), the liability can be transfered to the management only with consent of the management that to in respect of the nine items of amounts mentioned therein. Neither in Ext.P2 nor in the counter affidavit filed before this court has the respondents cared to give details of the liability in recoverable from Smt. L. Bharghavi Amma sought to be transferred to the management. That being so, by no stretch of imagination can the management be made liable for amounts due from the principal. As such Ext.P2 is clearly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is quashed. It is declared O.P.No.6513 of 2000 - 4 - that the petitioner is not liable for any amounts due from the said L. Bharghavi Amma. However, this shall not preclude the respondents for recovering the liability form any other person, who caused loss by not recovering the same from Smt. L. Bharghavi Amma in time, of course after complying with principles of natural justice, if they can validly do so at this point of time The writ petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs