The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government validly exercised its power to acquire the aided schools under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, and the compensation payable to the petitioners must be determined in accordance with the Kerala Education Act and Rules.

As all these cases involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. The challenge in these writ petitions is against a resolution dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly, and the consequent Notification dated 27.07.2016 issued by the State Government, directing the vesting of certain private aided schools, absolutely, in the State Government.

2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:

The petitioners in these writ petitions are the erstwhile Managers of Aided private schools that were functioning in the State. The functioning of the schools was regulated by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules [hereinafter referred to as the "KE Act and Rules"]. The said Managers had, prior to the introduction of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, [hereinafter referred to as the 'RTE Act'], intimated the State Government of their proposal to close down the respective schools under their management and, on completion of the statutory period of one year, written to the Educational authorities in the State to comply with the procedural formalities to effect a formal closure of the respective schools. On the Educational authorities taking a stand that permission for closing the school could not be granted, one of the Managers approached this court through a writ petition, which was disposed holding that, in the absence of any proposal by the State Government to take over the management of the school, the right of the Manager of an aided school to close down the school is not affected by the provisions of the RTE Act and Rules, especially when such school does not have a recognition under the RTE Act, either on account of it not applying for a recognition, or on account of it not complying with the provisions of the said Act. It was held in that case that the right of the Manager under the KE Act and Rules, to close down the school under such circumstances, was absolute and could not be interfered with by the State Government. The judgment of this court, which is reported as Padmanabhan A. A. v. Director of Public Instruction, Tvm and Others in [2015 (3) KHC 542], was upheld by a Division Bench of this court through the judgment dated 22.07.2015 in W.A.No.1262/2015. A Special Leave Petition preferred against the said Division Bench judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Under the said circumstances, when similar writ petitions came to be filed by the other Managers, who are also petitioners in the present set of writ petitions, this court, following its judgment in Padmanabhan A. A. v. Director of Public Instruction, Tvm and Others - [2015 (3) KHC 542], allowed the said writ petitions and found that the right of the Managers to close down their respective schools, in terms of the provisions of the KE Act and Rules, was absolute and could not be interfered with by the State Government.

3. It would appear that the procedure for closing down the schools met with resistance from some quarters, such as the Parent Teacher Associations functioning in the said schools, as also the public in the locality, who were interested in the continued functioning of the schools in the respective areas. This led the petitioners herein to approach this Court through Contempt of Court cases, seeking a direction to the educational authorities to implement the directions of this Court. The said proceedings eventually led to the educational authorities complying with the procedural formalities that were required to effect a closure of the schools. On their reporting the fact of closure of the schools before this court, the Contempt of Court cases were closed recording the fact of closure of the schools in compliance with the directions of this court. It is significant to note, however, that at the time of closing the contempt of court cases, the State Government had filed an affidavit before t