A judicial authority must respect civil court orders, and educational officers cannot act contrary to binding judicial decisions, highlighting available alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

W.A.No.313 of 2026 is filed by the 8^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025, W.A.No.318 of 2026 is filed by the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, W.A.No.328 of 2026 is filed by the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025 and W.A.No.330 of 2026 is filed by respondents 4 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025, under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. For convenience of reference, parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the impugned judgment, unless otherwise stated.

W.A.Nos.318 and 328 of 2026

2. The pleadings in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, from which the above writ appeals arose, in brief, are as follows:

2.1. The Lazar Nadar Education and Research Foundation was constituted through a Trust Deed by the petitioner, his father Daivathanam, mother Gomathy, his wife Pratheeja, his brother Sunil and also the spouses of his brothers, Sherly and Nisha. The Trust has established and administered various educational institutions. The petitioner has spent more than Rs.60/- Lakhs and also gave two acres of land for the purpose of establishing the school. Pursuant to the agreements dated 30.10.2006 and 01.11.2006 entered into between the members of the Trust, an application was submitted before the educational authorities for approving the petitioner as the Manager of the school, and by Ext.P1 order dated 09.02.2007, the District Educational Officer approved the said appointment.

2.2. Some members of the Trust, without the junction of the petitioner and other executants of the Trust deed, executed an amended Trust deed on 19.09.2008, and on the basis of the same, the father of the petitioner, Daivathanam, was appointed as the Manager. The said appointment was later approved vide order dated 29.12.2009. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2535 of 2010. Meanwhile, the amendment to the bye-laws was challenged by filing O.S.No.1095 of 2008 before the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Neyyattinkara. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 17.02.2010, the learned Munsiff set aside the amended bye-laws and restrained the other members of the Trust from obstructing and interfering with the peaceful management of the Trust property by the petitioner. In view of Ext.P2 judgment, W.P.(C) No.2535 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 07.12.2010, setting aside the appointment of his father as the Manager.

2.3. On 23.07.2021, three members of the Trust issued a notice to convene the annual general body meeting of the Trust. This notice was challenged by the petitioner, and by Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.580 of 2021, the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, restrained the those members from convening the meeting of the Trust and also from issuing further notices for convening the meetings other than issuing notice to the petitioner seeking the convening of the meeting.

2.4. In the meantime, one of the members of the Trust, namely Sunil, filed an application seeking a direction to the petitioner to issue notice to all members of the Board of Trustees to convene a meeting on the agenda detailed in the application or permit the Chairman to conduct a meeting. The Munsiff Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to convene a meeting, issuing notice to the members. It was further held by the Munsiff Court that on failure of t