SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J.
Swaroop V. S/o Velayudhan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7988 of 2020
Decided On : 10-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R. Harishankar, Parvathy Nair.
For the Respondent: V. Venugopal.

The central legal point established is that under Section 6 and Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Kerala Education Act, prior written permission is necessary for any sale, mortgage, lease or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided school. Non-compliance renders such transactions null and void.

Headnote:Kerala Education Act - School Management - Section 6, Rule 2 of Chapter X

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the Manager of an aided school, challenged a notice of sale of immovable property and sought a declaration that the respondent had no right to mortgage certain properties without obtaining permission as required under the Kerala Education Act, 1958.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's act of mortgaging the properties without obtaining permission was contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules 1959. The court quashed the notice to the extent it related to certain properties and declared that the respondent did not have any right to mortgage the properties without obtaining permission.

Issues:

Whether the respondent had the right to mortgage certain properties without obtaining permission as required under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and its rules.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court relied on Section 6 and Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Kerala Education Act, which restricts alienation of property of aided schools without prior written permission. It emphasized that such restrictions were essential for proper conduct and maintenance of aided schools in public interest.

Final Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed to the extent it related to certain properties. It was declared that the respondent did not have any right to mortgage those properties without obtaining permission as required under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and its rules.

JUDGMENT :

BASANT BALAJI, J.

1. The petitioner is the Manager of PAMM Upper Primary School, an aided school in Palakkad. The school was established in the year 1905, and the former Educational Agency of the school was one Balameenakshi Amma. Due to her old age, she requested the permission of the 4th respondent to transfer the management of the school without involving a change of ownership to the 5th respondent. As per Ext.P1, sanction was accorded to transfer the management of the School without involving a change of ownership in the name of the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the original Educational Agency, Smt. Balameenakshi Amma expressed a willingness to transfer the management of the School with ownership, and Ext.P2 was passed by the 2nd respondent on 13.06.1988, granting permission for the transfer of management with ownership in the name of the 5th respondent. On 09.07.2018, the 4th respondent issued an order appointing the petitioner as the manager of the School with effect from 29.01.2018 as per Ext.P3.

2. The School has more than 400 students studying in classes from I to VII. The property of the School extends to 1 Acre and 8 cents covered by five documents, viz. 3723/1988, 3724/1988, 3616/1988, 222/1992, and 4046/2001 of SRO, Palakkad, which are belong to the 5th respondent Educational Agency. The properties covered by Document Nos.3616/1988 and 4046/2001 were agreed to be sold to the petitioner under an agreement for sale dated 29.01.2018. The property covered by Document No. 222/1992 was proposed to be sold under an agreement for sale dated 29.01.2018 to one C.A. Reghunath who is the Manager of AUP Aided School, Vellikkad, Palakkad. All the five properties lie as one contiguous plot with defined and identifiable boundaries. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P6 notice dated 12.02.2020 issued by the 6th respondent. Ext.P6 contains 3 items of properties, and item no. 2 and 3 are properties standing in the name of Smt.Vijayakumari/5th respondent. The description in the document shows that it is a residential property in R.S No. 118/13, R.S No. 187/1, in Block No. 38 of the Palakkad Taluk. The said two properties are part and parcel of the School covered by document No. 3616/1998 and 222/1992, owned by the 5th respondent Educational Agency. Going by Ext.P6, the said two properties are given as security for providing financial assistance to a firm named M/s. Auxin Systems in Thrissur.

3. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P6, the notice of sale of immovable property, and to set aside the same. A declaration is also sought that the 5th respondent has no right to mortgage item no. 2 and 3 properties without obtaining permission as required under Section 5A and Rule 2 of Chapter X of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules 1959.

4. Though notice was issued from this Court to respondents 5 to 7, there is no appearance for the respondents. Hence, the writ petition in their absence.

5. The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate R. Harishhankar, submits that since the School is aided without permission in writing, as per Section 6 read with Rule 2 of Chapter X of Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules 1959, the Educational Agency cannot mortgage the properties. Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 reads as follows:

    “6. Restriction on alienation of property of aided school:

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, no sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided school shall be created or made except with the previous permission in writing of such officer not below the rank of a District Educational Officer, as may be authorized by the Government in this behalf. The officer shall grant such permission applied for unless the grant of such permission will, in his opinion, adversely affect the working of the school.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the officer refusing or granting permissi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top