IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5538 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.CHAKKANKUTTY,S/O. KUNJAN, POOCHERIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, PO PERUMBAAMBA, EDAPAL PIN 679 576, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM PIN 676 505. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN 676 101. 4. THE MANAGER, A.U.P.SCHOOL PERUMPARAMBA, PO PERUMPAAMBA, EDAPAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 679 576. 5. SMT. SUHASINI AMMA, D/O.GOVINDAN NAIR THEVARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBA PO, EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 576. 6. SHRI RAJESH,S/O. SUHASINI AMMA THEVARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBA PO EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.679 576. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5538 of 2008 S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5538 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the President of the PTA of a School is aggrieved by the permission granted by the DEO to the 4th respondent to segregate twenty three cents of land comprised of the AUP School, Perumbaramba from the properties of the School. According to the petitioner, the action of the DEO is illegal. 2. I have specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has filed this writ petition in his capacity as the President of Parent Teachers' Association of the School. When he asserted that it is, I directed the petitioner to produce the resolution adopted by the Association authorising the petitioner to file this writ petition. The petitioner could not produce any such resolution. As such, it must be presumed that the petitioner has filed this writ petition in his individual capacity, in which case this can only be a public interest litigation. Since the petitioner has not constituted this writ petition as a public interest litigation, W.P.(c) No.5538/08 2 the petitioner does not have a locus standi to file this writ petition. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.5538/08 3