Disposed

Antony Shiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020WP(C)/20175/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it cannot adjudicate the dispute between the School and CPAS regarding construction on leased land as it involves factual evaluation under Article 226. The Court directed the Government to decide the lease and construction issue and to dispose of the petitioners' complaint within one month. An interim order staying construction continues.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Government Authority to dispose of the petitioners' complaint and decide on the lease and construction within one month; interim order stays construction pending decision.

Antony Shiju Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20175 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANTONY SHIJU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MICHEAL JOCKEY, MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, MARADU-682304, (PRESIDENT, PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GOVT. BOY'S HIGH SCHOOL TRIPUNITHURA).

¶8

2 GODSON U.P., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, SERENE RESIDENCE, CHAMBAKKARA, MARADU-682304, (VICE PRESIDENT, PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GOVT. BOY'S HIGH SCHOOL TRIPUNITHURA).

¶9

BY ADVS. SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.JOEMON ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.

¶13

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR MCRV MEN'S HOSTEL 11, SHENOYS, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶15

5 THE THASILDAR, KANAYANNUR THALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶16

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶17

7 M.G.UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686560.

¶18

WPC 20175/20

¶19

¶20

8 PRINCIPAL, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES (ESTABLISHED BY GOVT. OF KERALA), COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN-682301.

¶21

9 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶22

10 THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVT. BOY'S HIGH SCHOOL, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

¶23

*11 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,THRIKKAKARA.P.O (ADDL.R11 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN W.P.(C) 20175/2020).

¶24

R7 BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R7 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN R1-6, R11 BY SMT. NISHA BOSE - SR.GP

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 20175/20

JUDGMENT

The issues in this case has a litigative

¶30

history.

¶31

2. The controversy projected by the

¶32

President and Vice President of the Parents Teachers Association of the Government Boys' Higher Secondary School, Tripunithura, as petitioners in this case, is that the Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS) - which is a Society established by the Government of Kerala, is now making a construction in the property belonging to the

¶33

School; and they allege that this is

¶34

deleterious to its interests, particularly when the school is now expanding and admitting larger number of students.

¶35

3. The petitioners argue that the

¶36

educational officers, therefore, have a duty to intervene into this matter and to ensure

¶37

WPC 20175/20

¶38

¶39

that no constructions are carried on within

¶40

the property of the School.

¶41

4. The petitioners then say that these

¶42

matters were earlier considered by this Court, leading to Exts.P2 and P3 judgment and order respectively, wherein, directions have already been issued to ensure that no constructions are made in the School property in any manner so as to effect it detrimentally. They, therefore, pray that the official respondents be directed to stay the new construction being

¶43

conducted by the CPAS and also that respondents 1 to 3 be directed to construct a new building for the School using the allocated fund under the 'Centres for Excellence' program on modernisation of physical infrastructure under the 'Public Education Rejuvenation Campaign', which is a project of the Government.

¶44

5. In response to the afore submissions

¶45

WPC 20175/20

¶46

¶47

made on behalf of the petitioners by their

¶48

learned counsel-Sri.Sherry J. Thomas, the

¶49

learned Senior Government Pleader–Smt.Nisha

¶50

Bose, submitted that, as is evident from Exts.P2 and P3, the construction being carried on by the CPAS is on the basis of a lease of land granted to them for a period of 30 years

¶51

and therefore, that technically, the petitioners cannot challenge the same. She, however, stated that the Government is willing to consider their objections against the

¶52

lease, taking note of the present

¶53

circumstances of the School and therefore,

¶54

that if this Court is so inclined, its competent Authority will take up Ext.P9 and dispose it of, though the said document has not reached them until now.

¶55

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶56

CPAS-Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, began his submissions

¶57

by taking umbrage to the averments in the Writ

¶58

¶59

WPC 20175/20

¶60

Petition that the CPAS is a private entity and

¶61

submitted that it is created by the

¶62

Government. He then added that his client is not doing anything illegal in the property of the School, since the portion where the construction is being carried on has been allotted to them under a valid lease, as has

¶63

also been affirmed by the learned Senior Government Pleader and thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶64

7. When I consider the dialectical

¶65

contentions as recorded above, it is obvious

¶66

that on one side, the petitioners are concerned about the well-being of the School and its future prospectus; while on the other,

¶67

the CPAS says that they are entitled to construct their building in the property

¶68

allotted to them under the lease deed. Both

¶69

these entities belong to the Government,

¶70

though the School is vested in Management

¶71

WPC 20175/20

¶72

¶73

administered by the Local Self Government

¶74

Institution, under the provisions of the applicable Statutes.

¶75

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the controversy between the parties cannot be allowed to escalate like this and that the Government must intervene and take a definite decision as to whether the lease given to the CPAS should continue and as to whether the construction being carried on by them should be permitted. These issues certainly cannot be considered by this Court at this stage because it involves an evaluation of factual and documentary inputs, which this Court is incapacitated from doing while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶76

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶77

writ petition and direct the competent

¶78

Authority of the Government to take up Ext.P9

¶79

WPC 20175/20

¶80

¶81

complaint of the petitioners and dispose it

¶82

of, after hearing them as well as the competent Authority of the CPAS – either physically or through video-conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order, thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of

¶83

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶84

Needless to say, until such time as the afore directed exercise is completed, the interim order granted by this Court on 09.11.2020 will continue to operate and further construction will be permitted only as

¶85

per the decision to be taken by the competent Authority of the Government in terms of the afore directions.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 20175/20

WPC 20175/20

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶96

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.32237/2010 DATED 13.1.2011. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVIEW PETITION NO.126/2011 DATED 4.3.2011 IN WP(C) NO.32237/2010. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.JSP/CM1051/11. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.9.2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO DEO (R 3) BY THE HEAD MISTRESS, SEEKING INTERVENTION. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.9.2020. EXHIBIT P9 PETITION BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 11.9.2020. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.9.2020. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SCHOOL COMPOUND. ADDL EXT.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF HTE PHOTOGRAPHS RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.4147/2006/G.EDN. DATED 25/09/2006 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

¶97

WPC 20175/20

¶98

¶99

EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.517/2008/H.EDN DATED 26.03.2008

¶100

ANNEXURE R9(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE GO(RT)NO.517/08/H.EDN DATED 26.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Antony Shiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Shiju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.G.Dinesh Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Dr.T.S.Lancelet Vs the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

P.K. Abdul Majeed Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

R.S.Anandakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Aruna.P Vs the State of Kerala