HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
T.K.SUSEELA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 10088/2013
Writ Petition - School Management Dispute - The court set aside the government order and directed reconsideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief to set aside a government order related to the management of schools and to be allowed to function as managers based on previous orders. The government had issued an order directing the reconsideration of the transfer of management and ownership of the schools, which the petitioners contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government order was passed without hearing the petitioners and directed the government to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties. The court also issued an interim order staying the operation and implementation of the government order.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the government order passed without hearing the petitioners and the affected parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government should reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties before passing any order related to the transfer of management and ownership of the schools.
Final Decision: The court set aside the government order, directed reconsideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties, and issued an interim order staying the operation and implementation of the government order.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
a. “Call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 and set aside the same to the extent it relates to the Schools devolved on petitioners i.e., AUP School and AMUP School) by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction:
b. declare that petitioners are entitled to function as Managers of the Schools AUPS Vaikathur and AMUP School, Vengad on the basis of Ext P8 series and Ext P9 series and c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the 1st respondent to allow the petitioners to function as Managers of the Schools - AUPS Vaikathur and AMUP School, Vengad on the basis of Ext P8, P8(a), Ext P9 and P9(a) orders;
d. to issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper” [sic]
2. It is the case of the petitioners that by virtue of a partition deed executed, one UP School each are vested in the petitioners, out of the 5 schools under the ownership of their deceased father. On the death of father, all the co- owners/legal heirs appointed their mother as Manager. On the application submitted by the Manager for transfer of management/ownership of the respective schools, the DPI passed orders on 4.2.2013 according sanction and the Education Officers issued orders approving them as Managers w.e.f. 4.2.2012, the date of order of the DPI granting sanction. But it is the case of the petitioners that the Government on the basis of a petition filed by the Mother, who was the Manager of the educational agency, issued an order on 26-3-13, directing the DPI to pass orders on the application for prior permission for transfer of management and ownership of the Schools, submitted jointly by all the legal heirs, saying that such joint application is not considered by the DPI. It is further ordered that the mother will continue to be the Manager of all the institutions till orders of DPI and consequential orders of DDE are passed. The direction is issued at a time when the DPI already accorded sanction and the educational authorities approved the Managership of petitioners, is the submission.
3. According to the petitioners, separate applications were submitted by the Manager in respect of the respective institutions. According to the petitioners, the Government passed the order without considering the relevant facts and without hearing the petitioners especially when the orders are already passed approving the petitioners as Managers.
Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on
09.04.2013, this Court passed the following order :
“Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in ten days to the respondents.
Having regard to the fact that the Director of Public Instruction has by Exts. P8 and PB(a) orders dated 4-2-2012 accorded sanction for transfer of management of AMUP School, Vengad and AUP School, Vaikathur respectively in favour of the petitioners and the Assistant Educational Officer, Mankada has by Ext.P9 order dated 22-3-2012 and the Assistant Educational Officer, Kuttippuram has by Ext.P9(a) order dated 20-3-2012 approved the transfer of management of the respective schools in favour of the petitioners with effect from 4-2-2012, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to an interim order as prayed for. There will accordingly be an interim order staying the operation and implementation of Ext. P10 Government order in so far as it relates to the schools covered by Exts. P8, P8(a), P9 and P9(a) orders. Needless to say, the petitioners will be entitled to continue to function as Managers of the respective schools.”
5. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ext.P10 order is passed without hearing the petitioners. A perusal of Ext.P10 would not show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.