Back
2019 Supreme(Ker) 932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
Anandan A. S/o Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
P. Suresh Secretary, Valancherry High School Managing Committee – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1308, 1420 of 2018
Decided On : 14-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Biju Abraham.
For the Respondents: Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar, Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, R.K. Muraleedharan, Sri. Syamji Ram, K. Latha, M.A. Zohra, P.A. Mohammed Shah, Sri. Sooraj Elanjickal, Sri. K. Arjun Venugopal, Smt. V.A. Haritha, Sri. Sidharth B. Prasad, Sri. Aswin Kumar M.J.
IMPORTANT POINTS
The issue considered and decided by the learned Single Judge is a matter which ought not have been agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because of availability of the effective statutory remedy of appeal provided. Various decisions are cited to support the proposition that, when an effective statutory remedy is available, the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 shall not entertain any writ petition.
Headnote:
The Societies Registration Act, 1860- When an effective statutory remedy is available, the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 shall not entertain any writ petition-A person who is not at all connected with the affairs of the educational agency has no locus-standi to challenge the appointment of the Manager, to represent the educational agency before the authorities. If the appellants have got any dispute with respect to constitution of the society or with respect to entitlement of its Managing Committee to function in the administration of the society, those are matters which are outside the purview of the criteria for approval of appointment of the Manager. The rejection of the approval ordered by the District Educational Officer was based on considerations which are extraneous and irrelevant.
Statement of facts:
Writ petition was filed for quashing Ext.P12 order of the District Educational Officer (DEO) through which the approval of the appointment of 2nd writ petitioner as Manager of two schools, namely the Valancherry Higher Secondary School and the Girls High School, Valancherry was rejected. The corporate educational agency of both the school is the Valancherry High School Committee-The General Body of the educational agency, in its meeting held on 22.7.2017, had ratified the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 13.7.2017, appointing the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager-The DEO conducted a hearing of the parties and taken a decision as per the impugned order, rejecting approval of the appointment of the 2nd writ petitioner as Manager of the schools. It is the said decision which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the court:
Availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for the writ court to exercise its jurisdiction-The impugned judgment specifically reveals the reasons which persuaded the learned Single Judge to decide the issue-Those are matters which can be considered as circumstances prevailing, which justifies the court exercising the writ jurisdiction to decide the issue on merits-Not persuaded to reverse the impugned judgment on the basis of the above said contention.
Result: Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
1. Since the challenge in both these appeals are against the same judgment of the Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 20 of 2018, dated 22.5.2018, they were considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.
2. The appellants in W.A. No. 1308 of 2018 are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition and the appellant in W.A. No. 1420 of 2018 is the 2nd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals are the writ petitioners and other respondents herein are the respondents 1, 5 and 6 in the writ petition.
3. The writ petition was filed for quashing Ext.P12 order of the District Educational Officer (DEO) through which the approval of the appointment of 2nd writ petitioner as Manager of two schools, namely the Valancherry Higher Secondary School and the Girls High School, Valancherry was rejected. The corporate educational agency of both the school is the Valancherry High School Committee. According to the writ petitioners, the Managing Committee of the educational agency, which held its meeting on 13.7.2017, had unanimously elected the 2nd writ petitioner as Manager of the schools. The 1st writ petitioner in his capacity as Secretary of the educational agency, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, had forwarded a request to the DEO for approval of the change of the Manager, in accordance with the decision taken by the Managing Committee. It is stated in the writ petition that the General Body of the educational agency, in its meeting held on 22.7.2017, had ratified the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 13.7.2017, appointing the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition (appellant in W.A. No. 1420 of 2018) as well as the respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition submitted objections before the DEO against approval of the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager. The DEO conducted a hearing of the parties and taken a decision as per the impugned order, rejecting approval of the appointment of the 2nd writ petitioner as Manager of the schools. It is the said decision which was challenged in the writ petition.
4. In the impugned order, the DEO observed that, the persons who raised objections had pointed out irregularities with respect to the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the educational agency. It was specifically found that, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition had raised a claim for including him in the Managing Committee, which took the decision to appoint the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager. The DEO, after examining the documents produced and after considering the arguments raised, arrived at a conclusion that the decision taken by the Managing Committee on 13.7.2017 is not in order. It was found that, as per Clause 5 of Bye-laws of the educational agency, the term of office of the Managing Committee had expired on 26.5.2017 and the next committee was elected by the General Body only on 22.7.2017. Therefore the decision taken on 13.7.2017 by the Managing Committee, the tenure of which stood expired on 26.5.2017, was not in accordance with the Byelaws. Therefore the approval of the appointment of the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager of the schools in question was rejected.
5. The appellants herein filed counter affidavits in the writ petition raising contentions to the extent of pointing out the irregularities in the functioning of the educational agency, as well as the irregularities committed by the Managing Committee in appointing the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager. But the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P12 proceedings of the DEO and directed to approve the appointment of the 2nd writ petitioner as the Manager of the schools, without any delay. The decision was based mainly on the reasoning that the reason for denial of the approval mentioned in Ext.P12, that the Manager was elected by a Managing Committee of which the term of office had already expired, is comp
