IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28616 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.S.SASIKUMAR,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN NAIR, NO.38,ADARSHA, VIDYUTH NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD 678 012. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. C.A.HIGH SCHOOL, ( CHAMI AYYAR)PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 6. SRI.K.SUDEVAN,MANAGER, C.A.HIGH SCHOOL, PERUVAMBA,RESIDING AT GURUKULAM, PERUVAMBA POST, PALAKKAD. ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED. 7. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, *ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.8.11.2011 IN IA. 17392/2011 R1 TO R4& R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (B/O) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.28616/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8/8/2008 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 6TH RESPONDENT P2:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 452/2010 DATED 24/6/2010 P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26/7/2010 P3(A):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARDS RECEIVED FROM R2-4 P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19146/2011 DATED 14/7/2011 P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1926/2010 IN OS 452/10 DATED 12/10/2011 P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 DTD. 27.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.28616/2011-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court for a second time to enforce the terms of the agreement he has executed with the sixth respondent, who is the Manager of a High School which has now been upgraded as a Higher Secondary School. The former writ petition, namely, W.P.(C).No.19146/2011 filed by him was dismissed by this Court as not maintainable. This Court noticed therein that a civil suit has already been filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.452/2010 before the Sub Court, Palakkad seeking for a decree for specific performance of the agreement. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application as I.A.No.1926/2010 in O.S.No.452/2010 praying for an interim injunction. One of the pleas raised by the petitioner is to restrain the sixth respondent from appointing any teachers in the school. The Civil Court was of the view that such an order of temporary injunction cannot be granted. W.P.(C). No.28616/2011 -:2:- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the sixth respondent has agreed not to make any appointments, it cannot be said that the petitioner is left without any remedy in the matter even though the Civil Court has refused injunction in view of Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act. Learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought various prayers including issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the sixth respondent not to make any appointments. Evidently, in a matter wherein the obligations of the parties are projected in terms of the agreement, a writ petition will not be the real remedy to enforce the terms of the agreement. It cannot be said, therefore, that this Court will have jurisdiction in a matter like this in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C). No.28616/2011 -:3:- Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently pleaded that the petitioner who is left without any other remedy should be allowed to resort to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, evidently the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended so as to adjudicate private disputes between the parties, which is a principle well settled. Therefore, I refuse to entertain the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed for a direction to the Government to consider and pass orders on his representation. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, the Government is not having any jurisdiction in this matter. Unless this Court is satisfied that the Government is having any statutory power to interfere in such disputes, this Court will not be justified in directing the Government to entertain a representation concerning private dispute between the parties relatable to an agreement. Therefore, the writ W.P.(C). No.28616/2011 -:4:- petition is thus dismissed for the reasons stated above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms