Partly allowed

The Secretary and Another v. Mr.Nasar.P and Others

Kerala HC9 Mar 2011WP(C)/2943/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking directions against a dismissed teacher to ensure peaceful functioning of educational institutions. Court accepted undertaking given by the teacher and police to protect the institution, finding no need for specific directions while preserving rights to peaceful demonstration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; no further specific directions issued as respondents undertook not to obstruct campus and police to provide protection.

The Secretary and Another Vs Mr.Nasar.P and Others — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶6

WP(C).No. 2943 of 2011(P)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

1. THE SECRETARY , DARUL-HUDA JUNIOR ARABIC COLLEGE COMMITTEE, PALAYADNADA, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673530.

¶10

2. THE PRINCIPAL, DHM TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE, PALAYADNADA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673530.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI. M. ASOKAN SRI. DEVAPRASANTH. P.J.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

-------------------------

¶14

1. MR.NASAR.P, S/O.MOIDEEN, NALOMKANDY HOUSE, PALAYADUNADA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 530.

¶15

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, VATAKARA RURAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 101.

¶16

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI CIRCLE,VATAKARA RURAL,KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 101.

¶17

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VATAKARA RURAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 101. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT. M. SHAJNA R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 2943 of 2011(P)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.7.2010.

¶25

EXT.P2 : PHOTOGRAPH OF POSTER.

¶26

EXT.P3 : THE PHOTOGRAPHS (7 IN NUMBERS).

¶27

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PETITION FILED FOR POLICE PROTECTION.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.10.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.

¶30

EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.7.2010 BEFORE THE AUTHORITY.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶35

------------------------------------------WPC No.2943 of 2011

¶36

------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th March, 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Basant, J.

¶39

The petitioners run two educational institutions in the same compound. First respondent is a dismissed teacher from the Teachers Training Institute of which the second petitioner is the Principal. First respondent is aggrieved by the action taken against him. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the first respondent is indulging in illegal, violent, contumacious and culpable activities of threatening the peaceful running of the educational institution in the premises. In these circumstances, the petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 to 4 to ensure peaceful and orderly functioning of the educational institution deterring the improper and culpable conduct on the part of the first respondent.

¶40

This petition was admitted on 28.1.2011.

¶41

wpc No.2943/2011 2

¶42

Respondent No.1 has entered appearance. The learned Government Pleader represents respondents 2 to 4.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after receipt of the notice in this writ petition from this Court, there has been no contumacious or culpable activities on the part of the first respondent. In the present situation, no specific orders may be necessary, but the petitioner apprehends that once this writ petition is disposed of, first respondent may continue to indulge in contumacious and culpable activities.

¶44

Respondent No.1 submits before this Court through his counsel that he has absolutely no intention to illegally obstruct the working of the institution or to indulge in any contumacious or violent conduct. According to him, his termination was unjustified. He is entitled to raise objections against such allegedly illegal termination. He has the right to peacefully demonstrate. His right to peaceful demonstration may be recognized. It is undertaken that the first respondent shall not in any way obstruct ingress and egress to the campus by students, teachers,

¶45

wpc No.2943/2011 3

¶46

employees etc. He shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct. This undertaking may be accepted and further proceedings may be discontinued, submits the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶47

The learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 submits that in the perception of respondents 2 to 4, there is no threat warranting issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution now. If there be any such contumacious or culpable conduct on the part of respondent No.1, needful shall be done by respondents 2 to 4 and adequate and effective protection shall be granted to the petitioners.

¶48

We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that in these circumstances no further or specific directions are necessary.

¶49

This writ petition is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. Needless to say, this judgment shall not fetter the rights of the first respondent to stage

¶50

wpc No.2943/2011 4

¶51

peaceful demonstration against his allegedly illegal termination of employment outside the gate of the institution provided ingress and egress to the institution is not in any way obstructed.

R.BASANT JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN

JUDGE

css/

The Secretary and Another v. Mr.Nasar.P and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary and Another v. Mr.Nasar.P and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Kumar Vs Vasu

Nizarudheen Vs the Superintendent of Police & 3 Ors.

Dr.Radha Mohan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Saju Thomas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Karthikeyan.S Vs State of Kerala and Others

Joseph S/O. Kurian Vs Damodaran and 5 Others