Petitioners challenging pending dispute over school management sought writ intervention regarding an upcoming student meet. Court held that since the District Educational Officer manages the school and the event does not interfere with petitioners' rights, no immediate consideration is warranted.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 3382 of 2016 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
1. RUKHIYABI, AGED 64 YEARS WIFE OF LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI PATTUVATHIL HOUSE, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL KASARGODE-671 541.
2. T.K.JAMEELA D/O.LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PATTUVATHIL HOUSE CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, KASARGODE-671 541.
3. T.K.FATHIMATH ZUHARA D/O.LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PATTUVATHIL HOUSE CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, KASARGODE-671 541.
4. T.K.ANEESA D/O.LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PATTUVATHIL HOUSE CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, KASARGODE-671 541.
5. T.K.ASEENA D/O.LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PATTUVATHIL HOUSE CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, KASARGODE-671 541.
6. T.K.JASEENA D/O.LATE T.K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, PATTUVATHIL HOUSE CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, KASARGODE-671 541.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SMT.P.A.JENZIA
CONTD..2..
.. 2 ..
WP(C).No. 3382 of 2016 (W)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 014.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KASARGODE.
6. SRI.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY HAJI PATTUVATHIL HOUSE, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL KASARGOD-671 541.
7. SRI.K.IQBAL
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3382 of 2016 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1- | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C]NO.10936/2015-N DATED 19.06.2015. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2- | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE SOCIAL MEDIAS. |
| EXT.P3- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2016. |
| EXT.P4- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2016. |
| EXT.P5- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2016. |
| EXT.P6- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2016. |
| EXT.P7- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2016. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C). No.3382 of 2016-W
---------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are said to be legal heirs of the Manager, who along with the 6th respondent, on the death of the Manager, forms a corporate educational agency. However, due to disputes between the petitioners and the 6th respondent, the approval of such corporate agency has not till now materialised. The dispute is pending before the statutory
authorities.
W.P(C). No.3382 of 2016-W
2
to be conducted in the School on 31.01.2016.
The apprehension of the petitioners is that, respondents 6 & 7 would style themselves to be the Manager of the School. The apprehension is misplaced in so far as the DEO is in Management of the School. Since the Old Students' meet is said to be convened on 31.01.2016 and since the same does not in any way interfere with the rights of the petitioners herein, this Court is of the opinion that no consideration of the writ petition at this stage is warranted.
The writ petition would stand dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge.
sp/29/01/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the apprehension of the petitioners regarding the scheduling of the old students' meet warrants immediate judicial intervention.
Whether the continued management by the District Educational Officer provides adequate protection against the respondents' anticipated actions.
RUKHIYABI
T.K.JAMEELA
T.K.FATHIMATH ZUHARA
T.K.ANEESA
T.K.ASEENA
T.K.JASEENA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
