Management disputes in educational trusts must be resolved by the Trust's General Body and cannot be decided by departmental authorities pending civil litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42606 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 of the 2^nd respondent Additional Director of Public Instructions and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to approve the 2^nd appellant as the Manager of PKK Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary School, Kayamkulam.

2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the 1^st appellant is an Educational Trust under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and is functioning from 01.11.1978. The 2^nd appellant is the Secretary of the Trust and also the Manager of the Institutions under the Trust in view of Ext P1 approved bylaw of the Trust. The appellants further pleaded that as per Clause 8(b) of Ext.P1 bylaw, the power to remove a member is vested with the General Body of the Trust.

As per Clause 9 of Ext.P1, the Executive Committee does not have any power to remove a member or an office bearer. The 2^nd appellant was elected as the Secretary- Cum-Manager in the General Body of the Trust held on 26.10.2019. By Ext.P2 notice dated 05.02.2024, a meeting of the General Body of the Trust was scheduled on 18.02.2024. While so, the 4^th respondent and his men, including a few office bearers of the Trust, called a meeting of the Executive Committee on 16.02.2024. They claimed that a decision was taken to expel the 2^nd appellant and to appoint the 4^th respondent as the Manager. By relying on the Clauses in Ext.P1, the appellants pleaded that the power to expel a member is vested only with the General Body and the meeting allegedly held on 16.02.2024 is not as per the bylaw.

2.1. It is the further case of the appellants that the meeting convened by the 4^th respondent and others was intended only to create forged seals of the Trust and also to forge documents, to get the administration of the Trust. The 4^th respondent and his men committed some criminal offences, and hence the 2^nd appellant filed a complaint before the Police and Ext.P2(a) FIR bearing crime No.235 of 2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station was registered on 26.02.2024. When the General Body was convened on 18.02.2024, various members moved resolutions against the 4^th respondent and other persons who have participated in the Executive Committee meeting on 16.02.2024. The General Body expelled the 4^th respondent and other persons who have acted against the best interest of the Trust, expressing their no confidence, from the Executive Committee. New office bearers were also elected in that meeting, and in pursuance of the election conducted in the General Body meeting, the list was duly produced before the District Registrar. Then Ext.P5(a) proposal dated 27.04.2024 was submitted to the 3^rd respondent District Educational Officer, along with an application for change of management.

2.2. The appellants state that by Ext.P6 proceedings dated 16.02.2024, the 3^rd respondent District Educational Officer, in collusion with the 4^th respondent, approved the 4^th respondent as the Manager, despite receipt of the intimation regarding the constitution of the new Executive Committee. In the application submitted by the 4^th respondent for transfer of management, wrong informations are furnished. Ext.P6 proceedings were therefore challenged by the