Disputes over trust management and educational agency authority must be resolved in civil court, not through writs, especially when parties have ratified past actions.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Thandparakkal Muhammed, the father of the appellant, founded Kunhamutty Memorial High School (‘K.M.High School’ in short), Karulai, an Aided High School in Wandoor educational district in the year 1968, and he was the individual educational agency and the Manager of the said school till his death on 14.02.2023. He constituted a public charitable trust by name Kottarakkad Charitable Trust as per Ext.P1 trust deed dated 05.02.2013. The ownership of the school and the right to transfer the management of the school have not been transferred or entrusted to the trust by Muhammed, till his death. The appellant contends that much after the constitution of the trust, the preamble of the deed of trust was amended by three out of four trustees incorporating the notary attested amendment deed that it is desirous of entrusting the management of K.M. High School and Higher Secondary School along with all its building, accessories and assets to the trust for the purpose of conducting the school under the management of the trust, without involving any change of landed property and managership of the school.

2.1. According to the appellant, this amendment to the trust deed is invalid. Even after the said amendment, Thandparakkal Muhammed continued as the Manager of the school till his death. After the death of Muhammed, the 5^th respondent was wrongly appointed as the Manager of K.M. High School, even without any authority of law, and it was approved by the District Educational Officer, violating Rule 4 of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules (‘KER’ in short). Therefore, the Additional Director General of Education (General) set aside the order of the District Educational Officer and temporarily entrusted the management of the school to the District Educational Officer. The 5^th respondent then challenged this decision by filing a revision petition under sub-rule 4 of Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER. The Government passed an order quashing the order of the Director General of Education and confirmed the order of the District Educational Officer. The amendment effected to the trust is alleged to involve the transfer of possession of the trust‘s accessories and assets. Such a transfer, since executed without the previous permission of the District Educational Officer, is prohibited by Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act . The Kottarakkad Charitable Trust is neither an educational agency nor a proprietary body, and it does not have any proprietary rights over the property and management of the school. Even after the alleged amendment to the trust, it does not qualify as an educational agency as the amendment lacks legal standing. As per Ext.P1 trust deed, Muhammed had no intention to transfer K.M. High School, Karulai, to the trust. Though Clause 21 of Ext.P2 trust deed states that the Chairman shall be the Manager or Director of all educational or other institutions of the trust, the said clause relates to educational or other institutions which the trust may establish or maintain in terms of Ext.P1. There is no indication in Ext.P1 that K.M. High School, Karulai, had ever been intended to be an educational institution under the trust. As such, the individual educational agency continued to be Mr. Muhammed in spite of the for