1. The question under challenge is whether the Government can take over the management of Vannappuram SNMVHS School in the interest of the pupil under S.14(2) of the Kerala Education Act 1958? The writ petitioner is the grandfather of the minor Manu Manoj, who is the present Manager of S.N.M. Vocational Higher Secondary School, Vannappuram according to a Will. The writ petitioner challenges Ext.P1 notification dated 17.6.2010 issued by the Secretary, Government of Kerala and consequential order dated 9.7.2010 of the Additional Secretary, General Education, Thiruvananthapuram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Vannappuram S.N.M. Vocational High Secondary School is an aided school and its manager was late P.N. Kumaran until his death on 12.3.2009. He had two sons and a daughter and his wife was a teacher, who later became the Headmistress of the said school. In the year 2003, Kumaran had executed a Will 94/03 of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Karikode and as per that will, the property, in which the school located, was given to his elder son Manoj and the wife of Kumaran will succeed as the Manager. That Will was revoked and thereafter a second Will was executed, in which all the three children are to succeed as Managers. However that Will was also cancelled and a third Will was executed on 31.8.2007 in which his grandson Master Manu Manoj, (minor) was named as the Manager of the school. Since Manu Manoj being a minor, the petitioner was represented as the Manager of the School until Master Manu Manoj become major. After the death of Sri. P.N. Kumaran, there arose a dispute among the legal heirs of the deceased Manager with regard to the management of the school. Since the administration of the School became difficult, the Government issued Ext.P1 notification u/s.14 (2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), on 17.6.2010 to take over the management of the School. The petitioner urged that the reason for issuing Ext.P1 notification was not specifically mentioned and without existence of any reason provided u/s.14(2) of the K.E. Act, Ext.P2 order was issued.

3. The respondents in their counter submitted that there was a dispute with regard to the management of the school. After the death of former manager, late P.N. Kumaran, several cases were filed by the legal heirs about the validity of a Will executed by the former manager. Besides this, there was serious allegations against Sri. Manesh P. Kumar, who is a Vocational Teacher in that school and one of the managers as per the Will. Ultimately, Sri. Manesh P. Kumar was suspended from service due to his misbehaviour towards staff and students. It was not possible for the management to maintain strict discipline in the School. Therefore, for the welfare of the students, the Government issued Ext.P1 notification u/s.14(2) of the K.E. Act. The basic necessities of the students were not redressed by the management in the absence of a Manager. In that situation, several letters were sent to the DPI by the PTA, finally, after discussing with DPI, the Government issued Ext.P1 Gazette notification. The 6th respondent also took similar contentions in their counter affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is subject to the existence of the circumstances provided in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and therefore without the existence of circumstances as required under Section 14(1) of the Act an order under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is bad. Ext.P1 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the said notification is bad in law. From a reading of Explanatory Note of Ext.P1, it is found that the exercise of power is not in tune with the requirements of law, which are required to exist for the purpose of taking over management of aided school as provided under Section 14(2) of the Keral