IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 1134 of 2007(T) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36917/2004 DATED 17/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 5 -------------------------------------------------------- THE KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY SECRETARY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.A. AJITH PRASAD JAIN, MANIYANKODE BUNGALOW, MANIYANKODE P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WAYANAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WAYANAD. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT V.H.S.S., KALPETTA. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K. RAMESH. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, SRI.SUNIL JOSEPH, SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 1134 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the Kalpetta Municipality against the judgment dated 17.08.2007 in the writ petition which reads thus: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: 1. Call for the records relating to Ext.P2 and issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to comply Ext.P2 direction issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. In view of the directions already issued by the competent authorities, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to hand over the key and records to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. 2. The contention now raised is that, at no point of time the Municipality had any intention to part with possession of the building and the intention was only to handover the building to the petitioner for conducting repairs of the building to be returned to the Municipality for R.P. No. 1134 of 2007 -2- continuing to use the building as school. The Municipality relies on Annexure 2 & 3 orders in this regard. According to the Municipality, this is a tribal school and there is no other building to house the school. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner also. The Municipality did not file any counter affidavit in the Writ petition. I doubt very much whether they even appeared for the hearing of the Writ petition on 17.8.2007. Admittedly by Ext.P2, the Deputy Director of Education has directed the Principal of the school to vacate the building and handover the key to the petitioner in the writ petition. Admittedly, the Municipality has not challenged that order. The learned judge only directed handing over the key as per the directions issued by the Officers of the Government. According to the counsel for the Municipality, the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to issue such an order in so far as the school belongs to the Municipality. I do not find much substance in that contention. Admittedly, the school was in existence years before the Municipality R.P. No. 1134 of 2007 -3- was vested with the responsibility of running the school. The school continued to belong to the Government under the control of the educational authorities. Therefore, I do not think that, the Deputy Director of Education is wholly without jurisdiction to pass Ext.P2 order. Apart from that, the judgment is dated 17.08.2007. The school has all along been functioning elsewhere ever since and even now. Therefore it is not as if because of want of availability of the building, the school is not functioning. Further from dilapidated nature of the building as is evident from the photographs of the school produced by the petitioner, I am certain that, that building is not fit to house the school and would pose a threat to the safety of the children. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the review petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/