The authority of child rights commission to issue interim orders is limited under the relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash Ext.P8 order issued by the 1^st respondent.

(ii) to declare that the 1^st respondent has no authority to entertain Ext.P6 complaint, as it falls outside the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon the 1^st respondent.

2. The petitioner is the Principal of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan School, Perumthiruthi. The school was granted affiliation by the CBSE in the year 2012 and there are 1106 students studying in 36 divisions at the school. The school timing was from 08:20 am to 03:00 pm over the last few years and was proposed to be changed to 08:00 am to 02:40 pm by the School Management Committee meeting held on 15.03.2024 from the academic year 2024-25. Though the Parent-Teacher Association also participated in the meeting, no objections were raised regarding the change in school timing to 08:00 a.m. to 02:40 p.m. Based on Ext. P1, the minutes of the School Management Committee meeting dated 15.03.2024, Ext.

P2 circular was issued. Thereafter, Ext. P5 notice was served on the 1^st petitioner, directing him to appear before the Commission on 14.06.2024. Along with Ext.P5 notice, a copy of the complaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent, marked as Ext.P6 was also received. Ext.P7 counter statement was filed to the notice issued by the 1^st respondent. On 29.07.2024, the petitioner received Ext.P8 interim order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, directing the petitioner to restart the canteen within three days and to produce information regarding the person concerned who had posted in the Parents’ Group that the canteen facility had been discontinued on the complaint of the complainant and the case was posted to 30.08.2024. The specific case of the petitioners is that the interim direction contained in Ext. P8 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent. Challenging Ext.P8 order, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent, contending the allegations raised in the writ petition.

4. Heard Smt.Dhanya P Asokan the learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.Anjana S Raj for the petitioners, Sri.Shameer P.M, the learned Government Pleader and Sri.Thoufeek Ahamed, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. When the case was taken up for hearing on 21.01.2026, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that he is not pressing the complaint filed before the 1^st respondent and submitted that the school timing has been changed from 08:00 a.m. to 02:40 p.m. and that the 2^nd respondent has no further grievance in respect of the complaint filed before the 1^st respondent. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the interim order was passed by the 1^st respondent without authority and that, as per Sections 13 and 14 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 , the Commission does not have the power to pass such an interim order and sought for interference of this court.

6. Since the 2nd respondent has submitted before this Court that he is not pressing the complaint and that he has no further grievance, I do not consider it appropriate to decide the issues raised in this writ petition on merits. Accordingly the issues raised are left open to be decided in an appropriate case.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

Ext. P8 interim order passed by the 1^st respondent is hereby set aside. The 2^nd respondent shall take appropriate steps to withdraw the complaint filed before the first respondent.

Sd/-