Disposed

K. Aravindakshan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2023WP(C)/12356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to the Assistant Educational Officer to effect change of management of Mannur North AUP School. The court ordered the 3rd respondent to consider the application within one month, disregarding the former manager's liability as it is being handled separately, clarifying that transfer does not affect such liability.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application within one month, ignoring the former manager's liability.

K. Aravindakshan, Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K. ARAVINDAKSHAN, "SREEPURI", KOORMANTHARA, MANNUR, KOZHIKODE. PIN-673328. BY ADVS. K.RAKESH ROSHAN THUSHARA.V

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTRATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, P.O FEROKE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673631

¶11

BY ADV SMT.NISHA BOSE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(C)No. 12356 of 2023

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶21

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the 3 rd respondent to effect the change of management of Mannur North AUP School to the name of the petitioner as directed in Exhibit P-2 order of the 2 nd respondent.

¶22

(ii) Declare the petitioner is the Manager of the Mannur North AUP School, on the facts of the case, as revealed from Exhibit P-2 order.

¶23

(iii) Issue such other order or direction as this honourable court may deem fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶24

Petitioner, who is the eldest son and legal heir

¶25

of deceased K. Chathukutty, the former manager of Mannur North AUP School, was elected as the manager of the school from May, 2018, in accordance with the decision as agreed in partition deed, executed in between his legal heirs, is the submission. When some

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶28

dispute was arose between the parties, the brother of the petitioner who was functioning as Manager of the school at that time, filed a suit challenging the election of the petitioner. Similarly the petitioner also filed appeal before the 2^nd respondent challenging the rejection of the application for change of management by the 3^rd respondent AEO, and revision before the 1^st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, now the issue in between the petitioner and his brother who was the earlier manger was settled and a settlement is arrived. They agreed to accept the election of the petitioner as the manager, is the submission. Consequently the suit filed by the brother of the petitioner before the Munsiff court, Kozhikode was disposed of by recording Exhibit P- 1 Settlement in mediation. The writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same subject matter was also dismissed as not pressed by way of Exhibit P1(a) judgment. Honoring the settlement recorded in Exhibit P-1 and further by considering Exhibit P1 (a) judgment

¶29

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

of this court, the 2^nd respondent by way of Exhibit P-2 order directed the 3^rd respondent AEO, to effect transfer of management of the school, by obtaining consent from other legal heirs also. Accordingly the petitioner made application by way of Exhibit P-3, along with all requisite documents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same is not processed stating that there is liability from the former manager to the Department. It is submitted that the former manager who is the brother of the petitioner already approached this Court by filing a writ petition and the revenue recovery proceedings is already stayed by this Court. Hence it is submitted that the Educational authorities are bound to consider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶36

application submitted by the petitioner was incomplete and subsequently the entire documents were submitted only on 10.04.2023 and the same is under scrutiny. The Government Pleader also submitted that this Court only stayed the revenue recovery proceedings and there is liability from the former Manager.

¶37

This Court considered the contentions of the

¶38

petitioner and the Government Pleader. Admittedly the dispute between the petitioner and his brother are settled out of Court. It is true that there is some liability from the former manager to the Department. That matter is seized by this Court in a separate writ petition and the recovery proceedings is stayed by this Court. If that be the case, according to me, the application submitted by the petitioner should be considered independently. The Department is free to proceed against the former manager in accordance with law after getting orders from this Court in the pending writ petition.

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶41

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the

¶42

following manner:

¶43

i. The 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass

¶44

appropriate orders in Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

ii. The 3^rd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 without considering the fact that there is liability from the former manager. But it is made clear that the transfer of management shall not affect the liability, if any fixed on the former manager.

¶46

iii. The petitioner shall produce a stamped certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3^rd respondent for compliance.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶49

¶50

WP(C) NO. 12356 OF 2023

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12356/2023

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT DATED 30/5/2022 IN O.S NO. 338/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P-1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2022 IN W.P(C) NO. 31883/2019. EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-012023 OF 2ND RESPONDENT, ORDERING CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/2/2023 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR EFFECTING CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27/2/2023 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.6664/2023 .

¶55

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

¶56

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K. Aravindakshan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Aravindakshan, 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

Vineetha Paul Vs the Director of General Education

Sayooj Punnakot Vs State of Kerala

Vineetha S, W/O.Jayakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jasna Latheef Vs State of Kerala

Pokkar Vs the Branch Manager

C.Krishna Pillai, Vs Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat