IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
ANTONY SHIJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37542 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners seek to challenge construction plans. (Para 2) |
| 2. argument about the committee's report and construction feasibility. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on committee findings and need for representation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. decision on reconstituting committee and timelines. (Para 7) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON RD MONDAY, THE 23 DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1948 WP(C) NO. 37542 OF 2023 PETITIONERS:
1 ANTONY SHIJU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MICHEAL JOCKEY, MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, MARADU, (CONVENOR, SCHOOL PROTECTION COUNCIL OF PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, GOVT. BOY’S HIGH SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA), PIN – 682304.
2 U.A. RAJESH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. APPU, UTHALITHALATH, THEKUMBAKAM TRIPUNITHARA.
(PTA COMMITTEE MEMBER, GOVT. BOY’S HIGH SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA), PIN – 682301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.JOEMON ANTONY SRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR MCRV MEN’S HOSTEL 11, SHENOYS, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682011.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030.
5 M.G. UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADHARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686560.
6 PRINCIPAL, CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES (ESTABLISHED BY GOVT. OF KERALA), COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN – 682301.
7 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN – 682301.
8 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (GENERAL), OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.
9 THE GOVT. BOY'S HIGH SCHOOL, TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD MISTRESS, PIN – 682301.
10 ADDL.R10.
THE CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ADVANCED STUDIES, CHERUVANDOOR, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
[ADDL.R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
19.11.2024 IN IA 5/2024 OF WP(C).]
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.SYLAJA S.L., GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Sherry J. Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader, Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent Municipality, as well as Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the additional 10th respondent.
2. The petitioners are stated to be interested in the activities of the Government Boy’s High School, Thrippunithura. The 1st petitioner is stated to be the former President of the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) of Govt. Boy’s High School, Thrippunithura, and the 2nd petitioner is stated to be the current PTA committee member. The complaint of the petitioners is about the proposed construction of a B.Ed. College building inside the premises of the Govt. Boy’s High School, Thrippunithura. In an earlier round of litigation – W.P.(C) No.20175 of 2020 – this Court found that, it is ultimately for the Government to decide as to the advisability of carrying out the additional construction for the B. Ed. College in the premises of the Govt. Boy’s High School, as above. On the basis of the directions issued by this Court at Ext.P1 judgment, admittedly, a committee was set up for considering the disputes as above. The report of the committee is produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P2. According to the petitioners, the afore report has ultimately suggested for carrying out the additional construction for the B. Ed. College, in a different extent of 85 cents of property as pointed out in Sl.No.6 of Ext.P2. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the construction, if any, has to be carried out as suggested in Sl.No.6 of Ext.
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.