In this contempt case, the High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the Government for issuing a new order refusing an NOC for school affiliation, despite prior directions. The court reserved liberty to challenge the new order separately.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER
THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930
Con.Case(C).No. 962 of 2008(S) ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1452/2007 Dated 20/07/2007 ....................
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
FR.VARGHESE MANAVALAN,S/O.ANTHAPPAN, 56 YEARS, R/AT.ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH,KIZHAKKAMBALAM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MANAGER, ST.ANTONY'S PUBLIC SCHOOL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM-686 562, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT -----------------------------
JAMES VARGHESE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETR., SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER (SR.) SRI.T.B.HOOD.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K. BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008 Judgment
Petitioner in this Contempt of Court Case is the Manager of an unaided school. He along with the President of the Parent Teachers' Association had field W.P.No. 1452/2007 impugning Ext.P8 order passed by the Government declining the request for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for affiliation to the Central Board of Secondary Education.
“6. In this context it has to be noticed
that the Government does not have a case that the existing guidelines in the matter of grant of N.O.C are not in force now. Those guidelines will govern the field. It may be true that the Government has constituted a new Committee to evolve new policy parameters and to recommend principles
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008 2
and guidelines to be followed by the Government for upgradation and recognition of existing schools and also for grant of N.O.C to C.B.S.E affiliated institutions. ........... But that does not mean that the request made by the petitioners should be kept in cold storage till the Committee submits its report recommending fresh guidelines/principles or new policy parameters.”
Admittedly the above judgment was not challenged by the State and thus it had become final. Thereafter the Government had issued another order on December 15, 2006 holding that since other English medium schools were available in the locality, the students in that area would get an opportunity to seek admission in those schools, if they so desire. The above order was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.1452/2007.
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
3
“........The attempt of the Government seems to be to contend for the position that if petitioner's school is granted NOC, the parallel English divisions in the 3 neighbouring schools may be adversely affected.
9. Admittedly, the 3 schools referred to in Ext.P8 order do not follow CBSE syllabus. It may be true that there are parallel divisions of English medium classes with a strength of 30 students each in 3 neighbouring schools. That is the sole reason which is stated in Ext.P8 order to reject petitioner's application. Curiously, it is further stated in Ext.P8 order that the Govt. “do not consider it as a matter of immediate public interest to provide NOC for CBSE affiliation to the petitioner's school before the fresh guidelines are finalised”. The above view taken by the Govt. cannot be countenanced especially for the reason that this Court in Ext.P7 had found that petitioner's application had to be considered in terms of the old guidelines. Similarly, the
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
4
Departmental Officer in his Visit Report had recommended grant of NOC. In the absence of any valid reasons to reject the report, I do not find any justification on the part of the Government to decline NOC to the petitioner's school. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained.
Therefore the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed. Government shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before July 31, 2007.”
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
5
Case happened to be filed on July 2, 2008. During the pendency of this case, the Government has come out with yet another order dated August 5, 2008. Paragraph 6 of the said order is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:
“6. In the above circumstances the application of the petitioner's school has been examined in detail on the basis of the report of the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram and as per the existing guidelines applicant school has not obtained recognition from the State Government to run middle class. Further they have not produced any documents to prove that they have obtained approval for syllabus from the CBSE/ICSE in middle class as envisaged in the guidelines issued by the State Government in GO (Ms) 18/88/G.Edn. dated 12/1/1988. Hence it is clear that the applicant school could not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Guidelines issued in GO (Ms)18/88/G.Edn. dated 12/01/1988 for NOC and also based on the conditions prescribed for affiliation by CBSE in their ByeLaws.”
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
6
middle class” as stipulated in clause (xii) of G.O.(Ms).18/88/G.Edn. dated 12/1/1988. It is pertinent to note that in any of the previous round of litigations between the petitioner and the Government such a ground was never raised by the Government. It is true that in Annexure B order there was a reference to the above stipulation, but in none of the above orders issued by the Government such a stand was taken by the Government. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner that the attempt of the Government is to deny NOC to the petitioner somehow. He contends that the respondent is guilty of ex facie contempt by his audacity to issue Annexure R1 order dated August 5, 2008 in wilful and deliberate disobedience of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.25267/2006 and W.P.No.1452/2007.
Cont. Court Case(C) No.962 of 2008
7
request not to condone the wilful act of disobedience by the respondent. However it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available to him as against Annexure R1 order dated August 5, 2008 in accordance with law.
Contempt of Court Case is closed with the above observations and reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure R1 order in separate proceedings.
A.K. BASHEER
an. Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is satisfied to initiate proceedings for contempt of court against the Government for issuing a new order denying NOC contrary to prior directions.
Whether the petitioner should not condone the wilful act of disobedience by the respondent.
FR.VARGHESE MANAVALAN
JAMES VARGHESE
A.K. BASHEER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
