The High Court rejected an appeal against an observer-conducted General Body election that elected the 4th respondent as School Manager, noting the underlying suit was dismissed as withdrawn and without order on costs.
Writ appeal rejected; elected parties to continue in office for their entitled period.
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
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941
WA.No.835 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.2439/2019(D) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.02.2019
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.C MOHAMMED MASTER AGED 76 YEARS
MANAGER, AMMHS AND LPS PULIKKAL, PULIKKAL.P.O., MALAPPURAM -673637.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.M.PREM
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD) SRI.H.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
JAGATHY, THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
4 V.ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.UNNIEEN MUSALIYAR, PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, ALUNGAL, PULIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-673637.
WA.No.835 OF 2019
2
6 PULIKKAL KAWAKIBONNAYYIRA SANGAM, P.D NASEEMUSSALAM, S/O VEERANKUTTY, SOURABHYAM, PULIKKAL PO, MALAPPURAM-673637.
(ADDL.R5 AND R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/03/2019 IN IA.NO.01/2019)
7 GENERAL SECRETARY, PULIKKAL KAWAKIBONNAYYIRA SANGAM.
(ADDL.R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2019)
BY ADVS. SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SR.GP SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.JULIAN XAVIER J., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Read order dated 04.04.2019:
“ The dispute agitated is as to who is to carry on the office of the Manager of the School which is under a Society, called; “Pulikkal Kawakibonnayyira Sangam” (for brevity the Sangham). At the outset it has to be observed that there is also a dispute on the Byelaws, as to what has been approved by the educational authorities and amendments incorporated, by virtue of compromising a suit; O.S.No.443 of 2014 filed before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. We need not go into that dispute as of now. Admittedly the Bye-laws prescribe for a three year period for the appointed Manager. The dispute is on how the Manager is to be elected; whether it is the Working Committee or the General Body.
2. Admittedly, one Abdul Rahiman was appointed for a period of three years by the General Body on 28.4.2017, which also stood approved by the DEO on 30.5.2017. The Manager so appointed and approved, resigned on 21.6.2017 and the Working Committee appointed the 4th respondent on 23.10.2017 till 31.3.2020. On 30.4.2018, when a General Body was convened, the appointment of the 4th respondent was approved. However, soon after the approval, the 4th respondent resigned. Hence, the General Body appointed the appellant herein with effect from 1.5.2018. Later, the appellant is said to have been removed by the Working Committee on 26.7.2018. Again, the 4th respondent came to be appointed by the Working Committee. The educational authorities, by Ext.P4, approved the appointment of the appellant from 1.5.2018 to 25.7.2018 and the 4th respondent from 26.7.2018 to 30.4.2019.
WA.No.835 OF 2019
4
The appellant challenged Ext.P4 order in the writ petition, wherein he was relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal before the DPI.
3. The Bye-laws also prescribe a General Body to be convened of the Sangham in April of every year. Presumably looking at the provisions of the Bye-laws, the educational authority while approving the appointment of the Manager, cautiously directed it to be got approved by the General Body. Having gone through the Bye-laws; that approved and the amended clauses, we are prima facie inclined to hold that the authority of the Working Committee is to fill up casual vacancies occurring in the post of the Manager, either by reason of an unforseen contingency or the existing Manager acting against the interests of the Sangham or the School; in which event too, the removal and appointment made by the Committee has to be placed in the General Body for ratification.
4. As of now, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent has produced before us a notice convening the General Body on 10.4.2019. The Counsel for the appellant has serious objection with respect to the notice insofar as the same having been issued by a Secretary, who according to him, has not been properly elected to that post. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent that the earlier Secretary had obtained employment in a school and he could not take up the employment when he is continuing as Secretary of the Sangham. Hence, he resigned and the present person was elected by the Working Committee, is the contention. Sri.P.N.Muhammed,
WA.No.835 OF 2019
5
General Secretary, Pulikkal Kawakibonnayyira Sangam who has issued the present notice dated 1.4.2019, is impleaded herein as the additional 7th respondent. The appellant is directed to take notice by speed post immediately to the additional 7th respondent. The 4th respondent is also directed to convey the directions in this order to the additional 7th respondent.
5. As observed there is a General Body now convened and the appellant also has received notice. There is said to be a list of about 200 persons, who are the members of the Society, who together constitute the General Body of the Sangam. In the context of the controversy involved herein and the General Body having been convened, we are of the opinion that ultimately it is upon the General Body to decide as to who are the elected President, Secretary or the Manager. Even if the Secretary, who has issued the notice, is not properly elected, it would be open for the General Body to ratify it at the meeting convened or remove him. Considering the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Secretary who has issued the notice is not a properly elected person, we deem it fit to appoint an Observer for the purpose of conducting the General Body. We appoint Adv.Sri.Julian Xavier J. as the Observer. The register containing the list of members shall be produced before the Observer by the Secretary, the 7th respondent. The General Body which has now been scheduled to 10.4.2019 on consent of all parties would stand shifted to 25.4.2019.
6. The additional 7th respondent shall produce the register of the members before the Observer on 25.4.2019, when
WA.No.835 OF 2019
6
the Observer reaches the school for the purpose of the General Body. The additional 7th respondent shall also ensure that fresh notices are issued to all the members specifically indicating the pendency of the writ appeal as also the directions of this Court to adjourn the General Body to 25.4.2019. The Observer would be entitled to approach the Station House Officer having jurisdiction over the area to seek assistance if there is any law and order problem created. The learned Senior Government Pleader is also directed to instruct the Station House Officer having jurisdiction over the area (Pulikkal P.O, Malappuram) to ensure that no law and order situation is created.
7. The General Body shall decide on the various items shown in the agenda as also any other item proposed and included in the agenda by the Observer at the meeting convened. The appellant shall be entitled to seek for items to be included in the agenda, which shall be communicated to the Observer on or before 20.4.2019. The Observer will control the proceedings as also place the agenda before the General Body meeting, as drawn up by him. The Observer shall file a report as to the proceedings in the above writ appeal. The General Body shall be convened at 4 p.m. on 25.4.2019 . The Observer shall be paid a remuneration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), which shall be shared equally by the appellant and the 4th respondent on or before 12.04.2019. The parties shall ensure that the Observer is provided transportation as also accommodation, if necessary at the locality.
Post on 12.04.2019.”
WA.No.835 OF 2019
7
2. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by us has submitted that he has conducted the election and filed a report. The report is placed before us and we see that the 4th respondent has been elected as the Manager of the School.
3. The appellant raises a contention that the election was not conducted in accordance with the terms of the compromise arrived at in a suit. The judgment and the decree of the suit is available in the records. In the writ petition, the judgment is produced as Ext.P6. Ext.P6 at 101 of the appeal shows the operative portion of the judgment, which reads as follows:
“Suit for Declaration and injunction.
2. Advanced as per IA 2884/2014. Both parties represented. Joint statement filed. Joint statement recorded. Suit not pressed. Obtain endorsement. Hence suit dismissed without costs.”
4. The decree is available in page 123 of the appeal, the operative portion of which is as follows:
“That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed.”
WA.No.835 OF 2019
8
5. Hence, though a joint statement was filed,
the suit was not decreed in accordance with the joint
statement. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn. We do not think any interference can be caused to the election as conducted now. The election having been conducted with our observer, the elected parties would continue in Office for the period they are entitled to.
The writ appeal would stand rejected. There is no order as to costs.
The Minutes Book as produced by the Advocate Commissioner shall be returned to the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent by the Registry.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G. ARUN
JUDGE
sp/05/08/19
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
WA.No.835 OF 2019
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1
TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.E.M.(2)/94088/17/ D.P.I. DATED /03/2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DPI.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SIGNED BY THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF THE GROUP FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ELECTED AS THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL AS PER THE CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.443 OF 2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANJERY.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE-R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE RESPONDENT GROUND IN THE SOCIETY.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal should be allowed to challenge the election of the Manager held by the General Body despite objections to the election process.
Whether the eviction of the respondents from office following the observer-conducted General Body is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.C Mohammed Master
State of Kerala
Director of Public Instructions
V. Abdul Hameed
Pulikkal Kawakibonnayyira Sangam
K. Vinod Chandran
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
