T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

Both these writ petitions concern the affairs of a High School, viz. Ganapathy Vilasam High School at Koovappady. WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is filed by one of the owners and Managing Committee members of the school, aggrieved by Ext. P5 order passed by the Government in a review petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 therein. The fifth respondent, viz. the Dharma Paripalana Sabha has obtained as per two sale deeds the rights of respondents 3 and 4 therein, in regard to the properties and right of management of the school. WP (C) No. 19196/2010 is filed by the Sabha and respondents 3 and 4 in the other writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, which is confirmed by the Government refusing permission for the transfer.

2. The case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is that the school was established in the year 1938 by late Shri. A.S. Narayana Iyer, with the intention of promoting education among the Tamil Brahmin community which is a religious and linguistic minority. Ext. P1 is the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, approving the constitution of the school. The Educational Agency is known as "Ganapathy Viiasam High School, Koovappady." The petitioner points out that respondents 3 and 4, without waiting for prior sanction of the Director of Public Instruction as provided under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 5 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, executed two sale deeds as per Nos. 2027/2005 and 2028/2005 of the Sub Registry Office, Perumbavoor, in favour of the fifth respondent Sabha. Thereafter, they approached the Director of Public Instruction for sanction. This was rejected by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P2 order. Ext. P3 is the judgment in OS No. 120/2005 filed by the petitioner which was a suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction for declaring that the sale deeds executed by respondents 3 and 4 are not binding on the petitioner and seeking for a prohibitory injunction against respondents 3 to 5. The suit was decreed as per Ext. P3 judgment, against which AS No. 72/2009 is pending before the bub Court, Perumbavoor.

3. The revision petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 against the order Ext. P2, also stands rejected by Ext. P4 order. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a review petition before the Government which was allowed as per Ext. P5 order, even without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity for hearing. It is contended that the review petition itself is not maintainable, as Rule 93 of Chapter XIV-A KER permits review of only original orders. It is also pointed out that in the light of the binding judgment and decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the Government was not correct in passing Ext. P5 order. The matter is now pending before the Civil Court in the form of an appeal against Ext. P3 judgment.

4. In WP (C) No. 19196/2010 also, the orders passed by the Director of Public Instruction and the Government have been produced as Exts. P5, P7 and P10. The copy of the review petition filed by the parties, have been produced as Ext. P9. The contention raised is that the review petition is maintainable and therefore the order Ext. P10 is valid in law.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 Shri. V. Chitambaresh, Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 19196/2010, Shri. V.A. Mohammed and Shri. K.S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 and learned Govt. Pleader.

6. Shri. V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 submitted that the order Ext. P5 passed by the Government lacks jurisdiction. It is pointed out that the Government is not conferred with any express power for reviewing the order and even the power of review conferred under Rule 93 of Cha