R. Bhaskaran, J.

Petitioner is the Manager of Hemambika Junior Basic School, Palakkad. He sent Ext. P1 notice under S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act proposing to close down his school with effect from the next academic year. The Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P3 communication dated 20.5.2000 informed the petitioner that the notice to close down the school is rejected. According to the petitioner, there is no provision in the Kerala Education Act and Rules to reject the notice under S.7(6) and to compel the Manager to continue the school after one year of the issue of notice. Since the petitioner apprehended that the educational authorities may break open the gate and re-start the school after the period of notice, he filed O.S. No. 473 of 2000 before the Munsiffs Court, Palakkad, for necessary reliefs. After the filing of the suit, the second respondent passed Exts. P4 and P5 orders appointing the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, as Ex-officio Manager of the school and also taking over the management for a period of five years. The petitioner challenges Ext. P4 rejection of the notice issued by the petitioner and also the orders by which the management of the school is taken over for a period of five years by the Government.

2. In the Kerala Education Act, there is no provision to compel the Manager to run the school after the period of one year of giving notice under S.7 of the Act. R.24(2) of Chapter V of Kerala Education Rules had provided for granting permission for the closure of the school. That provision was held to be ultra vires of the Act by this Court in the decision in Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT 496) as early as on 31.5.1972. For the last more than 29 years, the Legislature has not thought it fit necessary to amend the Act and to have a provision for continuing the school in the interest of the general public.

3. The question whether the Manager has the right to close down the school after the period of one year of the notice and the further question whether the Government can take over the management for five years for the reason that the Manager has issued the notice have come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and it has been found that the Government cannot take over management merely for the reason that the Manager has issued notice of closure of the school.

4. Even before the Division Bench held so, Justice M.P. Menon had considered the question in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 359) and found that there is no necessity for getting permission from the Government or the Educational Authorities for closing the school and the only condition is that the Manager should give notice giving time expiring with 31st May of the year. An attempt to take over the management for the reason that the Manager has issued the notice under

S.7(6) of the Act was held to be illegal by this Court.

5. In Balakrishnan v. Ramaseshan (1993 (1) KLT 519), a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the reasoning in Krishnakumar's case (1972 KLT 496) and Subramanian's case (1986 KLT 359) and held that the action taken under S.7(6) of the Act by the Manager cannot be treated as an act of neglect within the meaning of S.14(1) of the Act. It has been held in Balakrishnan's case that S.14(2) is also to be considered in the light of S.14(1). S.14 of the Kerala Education Act reads as follows:

"14. Taking over management of schools:

(1) Whenever it appears to the Government that the Manager of any aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under this Act or the rules made thereunder, and that in the public interest it is necessary to take over the management of the school for a period not exceeding five years, they may, after giving the Manager and the educational agency, if any, a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the proposed action and after considering the cause, if any, shown do so, if satisfied that such taking over for the period i