Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN, SRI.MANU MOHAN, SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD, SHRI.KRISHNA S. KARUNAKARAN, SHRI.JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY
For the Respondents: SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM, SRI.NAZIF K.N., SRI SUNIL NATH, GP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WRIT APPEAL NO. ___ OF 2026

Thursday, the ___ day of _______ 2026

IN WRIT PETITION (C) NOS. 21615 OF 2023 AND 28053 OF 2024

Moithunnykutty
Aged 46 years, S/o. Mohammed Ali,
Kollakkattu House, Punnayur P.O.,
Thrissur, Pin - 679562.

... Appellant

VERSUS

1. The District Collector
   Office of the District Collector,
   Collectorate, Civil Station,
   Thrissur, Pin - 680001.

2. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21615 of 2023
   (Respondents 5 & 6 therein and other respondents as per cause title).

... Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT ACT, 1959 READ WITH RULE 7 CHAPTER III KERALA HIGH COURT RULES, 1978

The humble petition of the Appellant above named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
   The Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28053 of 2024 and the additional 7th respondent in the connected W.P.(C) No. 21615 of 2023, which concern the operations of an educational institution imparting preschool education focused on Quran and allied subjects to approximately 300 students. (!) (!) (!) The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21615 of 2023 alleged that the institution was operating without recognition under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "RTE Act"). (!) The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 02.02.2026, allowed W.P.(C) No. 21615 of 2023 directing closure of the institution while permitting operations for the academic year 2025-26, and dismissed W.P.(C) No. 28053 of 2024. (!) (!) Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant prefers this appeal on the following among other grounds.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

A. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the institution requires mandatory recognition under Section 18 of the RTE Act without considering that the institution imparts only preschool education for children below the age of 6 years, which falls outside the ambit of compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RTE Act, applicable to children aged 6-14 years. (!)

B. The finding that the institution is operating illegally overlooks the accreditation granted by the National Institute of Open Schooling (Ext.R7(k) dated 28.11.2024), which provides valid recognition for its operations, rendering the direction for shutdown unsustainable. (!)

C. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the institution exclusively teaches Quran and allied religious subjects at preschool level, which does not constitute formal schooling requiring government recognition under the RTE Act, as such activities are protected under fundamental rights to religious and cultural education. (!)

D. The reliance on prior proceedings (Ext.P12 and stop memo) was wrongly discounted, as the District Collector's orders based on Ext.P10 affirm compliance, making the writ petition infructuous. (!)

E. The interim order dated 17.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 21615 of 2023, upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1283 of 2024, permitted action against unrecognized institutions but did not preclude challenging the stop memo or recognizing alternative accreditations. (!)

F. The direction to shutdown the institution without providing adequate opportunity to obtain recognition or demonstrate compliance with norms violates principles of natural justice and proportionality, especially given the 300 students affected and the request for reasonable time for alternate arrangements. (!)

G. The learned Single Judge misapplied the principles governing educational institutions by not distinguishing between formal schools and preschool/religious instruction centers, leading to an erroneous conclusion that Section 18 mandates closure without state permission for religious studies. (!) (!) (!)

H. The dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 28053 of 2024 without independent consideration of the Appellant's right to operate under NIOS accreditation and as a preschool is arbitrary and contrary to settled legal principles on administrative fairness. (!)

I. The judgment overlooks the counter-affidavit admissions confirming preschool nature and limited curriculum, warranting exemption from RTE recognition requirements. (!)

VALUATION: The appeal is presented for admission and final disposal. Court fee of Rs.500/- is paid.

PRAYER:
In the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Admit and allow this appeal;
b. Set aside the judgment dated 02.02.2026 in W.P.(C) Nos. 21615 of 2023 and 28053 of 2024;
c. Declare that the Appellant's institution does not require RTE Act recognition for preschool religious education;
d. Quash the direction for shutdown and permit continued operations;
e. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.

Place: Ernakulam
Date: _______

Advocate for the Appellant
(SRI. S.K. ADHITHYAN / SRI. MANU MOHAN / etc.)

VERIFICATION
I, Moithunnykutty, do hereby verify that the contents of the above appeal are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Verified on this ___ day of _______ 2026 at Ernakulam.

Appellant