Disposed

Sayyid Hameed Ali K.V.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2020RP/574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to set aside an order disposing of a writ petition by directing authority to consider a representation. The Court clarified that the order does not prevent the petitioner from functioning as Manager while the representation is considered within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition in review is dismissed; orders in impugned judgment stand; authority to consider representation within two months; petitioner directed not to be barred from functioning as Manager.

Sayyid Hameed Ali K.V.K Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.574 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 14492/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14492/2020(J) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SAYYID HAMEED ALI K.V.K AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, DARUL SALAM HOUSE, CHERUKULAMBA, VATTALUR P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 507

¶9

2 MARIYAM BEEVI, AGED 55 YEARS D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST.676 507

¶10

3 SAINABA BEEVI K.V.K, AGED 48 YEARS D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST.676 507

¶11

4 SHAREEFA BEEVI, AGED 44 YEARS D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST676 507

¶12

5 SHADIYA BEEVI, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST.676 507

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL SRI.RAFFEEKH.K

¶14

RP.No 574 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT/S:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶18

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶19

3 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC) GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶20

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶21

5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶22

6 SAYYID HASHIM K.V.K, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA P.O, MAKKARAPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676 507

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

RP.No 574 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Dated this the 22^nd day of September 2020

¶28

The review petitioners are the respondents 6 to 10 in W.P.(C).No.14492/2020. The respondents 1 to 5

¶29

and the petitioner in the writ petition are the respondents in the review petition. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the review petition.

¶30

This Court, by judgment dated 17.07.2020, had disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation (Ext.P12 in the writ petition) submitted by the 6^th respondent within a period of three months, after affording the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 10 an opportunity of being heard. It was categorically mentioned in the judgment that this Court was not expressing any thing on the merits of the dispute.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioners in the review petition that, the 6^th respondent had

¶32

RP.No 574 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

suppressed material facts in the writ petition and got the case disposed of at the admission stage. The 3^rd petitioner has not ceased to be the Manager, as alleged in the writ petition, but is continuing as Manager of the school. The 3^rd petitioner is entitled to hold the office of the Manager till 07.05.2021. However, the 6^th respondent under the guise of the impugned judgment is preventing the 3^rd petitioner from functioning as the Manager of the school. The representation directed to be considered by the 2^nd respondent is premature. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of record, and the judgment in W.P.(C).No.14492/2020 may be recalled and the writ petition be dismissed.

¶35

Heard Sri. Mohamed Jameel P.K., the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, Sri.P.Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶36

RP.No 574 OF 2020 5

¶37

This Court while disposing of the writ petition had specifically observed that the writ petition was being disposed without expressing anything on the merits of the dispute. This Court only directed the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose the representation submitted by the 6^th respondent, in accordance with law, after affording the review petitioners and the 6^th respondent an opportunity of being heard, since admittedly, the representation submitted by the 6^th respondent was pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent -the statutory authority, who was bound to consider the same and take a decision on it, in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment.

¶38

Nevertheless, to allay the apprehension of the petitioners, as projected in this review petition, I make it clear that the directions passed in the

¶39

RP.No 574 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

impugned judgment will not stand in the way of the 3^rd petitioner functioning as the Manager of the School, as per Ext.P3 order, as enjoined in law. It is once again reiterated that the 2^nd respondent shall consider the representation (Ext.P-12 in the writ petition), only on its merits, including its maintainability, and pass orders, in accordance with law, after affording the review petitioners and the 6^th respondent an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

ska

Sayyid Hameed Ali K.V.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyid Hameed Ali K.V.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jithin Vs Renjith

Mathew Joseph Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Valiya Kambrath Krishna Pothuval (Died) (Lrs Impleaded) Vs Vadakkeputhalath Sarada

Gandhi Smaraka High School & Another Vs the Secretary & Another

Sayyid Hameed Ali K.V.K Vs State of Kerala

Laly Jojan Vs S. Suhas