The court reaffirmed that when statutory remedies are available, parties must pursue them before seeking relief via writ petitions.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34614 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is a member of the Central Board of Anglo Indian Education(herein after referred as Board), which is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act and the appellant was duly appointed as a Consultant by the Board as per clause 2 (x11) of Ext.P1 Byelaw. As per Ext.P1 byelaw, the Board is conducting 11 schools, including Higher Secondary, High School, U.P. School and LP School in and around Kochi and Thrissur. When dispute arose in the administration of the Board, this Court passed Ext.P2 order dated 05.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.1133 of 2019, appointed the 3^rd respondent to act as the Manager of the school until further orders. Against Ext.P2 order, the Secretary of the Board filed W.A.No.1935 of 2022, the Administrative Committee Member and Local Manager of C.M.E.P.School, Sri.Patrick Livera filed W.A.No.1952 of 2022 and W.A.No.1994 of 2022 against the order in R.P No.1196 of 2022 and W.P(C)No.1135 of 2019 of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P3 Common Judgment dated 26.05.2023 in W.A.No.1935 of 2022, 1952 of 2022 and 1994 of 2022 disposed the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned Orders of the learned Single Judge and directed the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits. One Sri.Antony Jeswin Fierado filed O.S.No.966 of 2023 before the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam against the Board and others, wherein the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P5 Order dated 12.02.2024 to conduct the election to various posts of office bearers to the Administrative Committee of the Board as per Ext. P1 and the Rules and Regulations. The appellant being a member of the Board ought to have been in the voters list; however the Advocate Commissioner in collusion with the plaintiff in the suit fraudulently not included the appellant in the voters list and clandestinely prevented the appellant from exercising the right to vote in the election held on 12.04.2025. Since the appellant could not cast his vote, he filed Exts.P6 and P7 interlocutory applications before the Trial Court for impleading and stay the proceedings in Ext.P5 order and the election. Thereafter, the appellant filed OP(C)No.1385 of 2025. This Court by Ext.P8 Judgment dated 17.06.2025, directed the Trial Court to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 applications within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, and till then the Trial Court was directed not to accept the Commission Report and declare the result of the election held on 12.04.2025. In obedience to the directions in Ext.P8 Judgement, the learned Munsiff posted the case for hearing of Exts.P6 and P7 applications on 11.07.2025, 12.07.2025 and 15.07.2025. On 15.07.2025 the learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P6 and P7 for default by Ext.P9 order. The appellant filed Exts.P11 and P12 restoration applications to restore Exts.P6 and P7, and the same are pending. Now taking shelter of the advantage of the situation of the dismissal of Exts.P6 and P7 applications, the respondents 5 and 6 filed a petition before respondents 3 and 4 by contending that they are declared as office bearers of the Board to conduct administration of the schools, despite the fact that the Trial court has not accepted the Commission report and not declared the result of the election. The 2^nd respondent without verifying the records and orders of this Court and trial court and without obtaining legal opinion from the Education department, arbitrarily exercised its jurisdiction strai