Government must follow statutory procedure and provide hearing before permanently acquiring management of educational institutions, respecting ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

WP(C) No.21720 of 2021

1. WP(C) No.21720 of 2021 is filed challenging Ext.P13 order and for other consequential reliefs.

2. It is averred that the petitioner is a hereditary trustee of Naduvilmadom group of temples which consists of 18 temples spread over in Malabar area. The property was given by a grant to late Justice Sundara Iyer of the Madras High Court, by the petitioner for establishing Harihara Patasala as per Ext.P1 document dated 04.07.2012. A higher Secondary school was established in 1946 and a committee by name ‘Sarvajana Education Committee’ was formed and the committee is managing the school, and late P.K. Krishnaswamy was officiating as manager of the school. Petitioner relying on Ext.P2 would submit that the title over the property still vests with the petitioner. But due to some mistakes in the BTR the name of the former manager P.K. Krishnaswamy was shown as land owner in Ext.P3 BTR. While so, by Ext.P4 Government decided to take over the management of the school for a period of five years invoking the powers under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1958’), in public interest for the reason that the school is not functioning properly owing to mismanagement and maladministration. Ext.P4 proceedings were challenged by Sri. P.K. Krishnaswamy who was the then Manager by filing WP(C) No.4128/2003, in which the petitioner also got impleaded as additional 13^th respondent, and the said original petition was disposed of as per Ext.P5 finding that the period of five years is already over and therefore directed the 1^st respondent Government to consider the matter and take a decision on the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other parties concerned. The petitioner could not participate in the hearing before the Government as there was another hearing scheduled before the Commission of Malabar Devaswom Board and Ext.P6 request seeking adjournment of the hearing was submitted by the petitioner. Without considering the said request, and without hearing the petitioner Government passed Ext.P7 order finding that, as the manager of the school could not make available any document showing the ownership of the school, Government in principle decided to take over the school permanently. Later Ext.P7 was challenged by Sri. P.K. Krishnaswamy and this Court in Ext.P8 judgment categorically found that though in BTR name of Krishnaswamy is shown as the owner of the school and the property, the land register produced before the Court as per the direction issued by the Court revealed that the owner of the property is Puthucode Devaswom owner Naduvilmadhom Mooppil Swamiyar. Therefore, petitioner therein was relegated to approach the competent Civil Court to prove his ownership over the school and the properties. Later, Ext.P9 representation was filed by the petitioner requesting to drop attempt to take over the petitioner’s school, and thereupon a report was called for from the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P10. When petitioner came to know that attempts were being made to take over the school by the Manager he again filed Ext.P10 representation pointing out the factual situation and produced all documents in support of his contentions. Thereupon, a report was called for from the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P12. While petitioner was awaiting orders in this matter, to the total surprise of the petitioner Government issued Ext.P13 taking over 10 schools as Government schools in which the petitioner’s school is included as serial number 10. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that the Government in principle decided to take over the p