SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVALLA – Appellant
Versus
RADHAKRISHNAN C. – Respondent
WA NO. 1760 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: NISHA BOSE
For the Respondents: S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, K.SHAJ, GEORGIE JOHNY

Court may set aside overreaching judicial directions if not sought in petition or premature.

Headnote:The Kerala Education Rules (KER), specifically Chapter IV Rule 3(2), mandate specific norms for playground extent and facilities in schools. The case arose from a writ petition filed to prevent the construction of a water tank within a school compound without permission from educational authorities, which threatened the safety and space available to students, particularly SC/ST children enrolled in the institution. The learned Single Judge had directed the State Government to formulate necessary guidelines within a set timeframe, and further directed closure of schools failing to comply with those guidelines. The primary issue framed by the Court concerned whether it was appropriate for the Single Judge to issue directions regarding the closure of non-compliant schools without first allowing the State to formulate the relevant guidelines, and whether the imposition of such a direction was warranted given that no such relief had been sought in the original petition. The Court held that the second direction for closure of schools was legally unsustainable, as it preempted the State’s role in determining the appropriate consequences for non-compliance and was issued in the absence of a direct request for such relief, thereby exceeding the scope of judicial direction. The writ appeal is disposed of by setting aside the second direction of the impugned judgment while directing the State to comply with the first direction to formulate norms/guidelines within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Table of Content
1. background and record of writ petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. delay condonation and state arguments (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. validity of overbroad judicial directions (Para 9)
4. final disposal and clarified directions (Para 10)

SHRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH PATHANAMTHITTA SHRI.K.SHAJ, SC, KADAMPANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT SHRI.GEORGIE JOHNY, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2026, THE COURT ON 19.05.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.(C)No.19170 of 2014 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 11.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st respondent is the President of the Parents Teacher Association of the 3rd respondent school, and the 2nd respondent is its Managing Committee Member. The 3rd respondent is a lower primary school, situated on 50 cents of land, where nearly 100 students are studying in classes 1 to 4, mainly SC/ST students. In the middle of the courtyard of the school, the respondents 4 and 5, the District Panchayath and Kadampanad Grama Panchayath, are attempting to construct a water tank, without obtaining permission from the school authorities or its higher authorities, as evidenced by Ext.P7 communication dated 18.07.2014 issued by the 2nd appellant. On 13.07.2014, a Sunday, using a JCB, a deep pit had been formed in the courtyard by the 5th respondent in which, during the monsoon period, water is being stored and is a threat to the life of the students. If the construction is permitted to continue, the extent of the school will be substantially reduced, and the playground will vanish. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2-petitioners are constrained to file W.P.(C) No.19170 of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the District Panchayath, Pathanamthitta, and Kadampanad Grama Panchayat from constructing water tank or such other constructions, without the permission of the educational authorities within the compound of the G.W.L.P.

School, Thuvayoor South.

3. In the writ petition, the 6th respondent Assistant Engineer of the Water Authority, Adoor Division, filed a statement dated 19.08.2014 stating that Kerala Water Authority is only an implementing agency to execute the work of construction of an overhead tank in the compound of G.W.L.P School, Thuvayoor. To that statement, respondents 1 and 2- writ petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 26.08.2014, producing therewith Exts.P13 to P15 documents. The 1st appellant Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta, filed a counter affidavit dated March 2015 by producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(f) documents.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 11.04.2024. The operative portion of that judgment reads thus;

“Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions to the State Government:

1. The State of Kerala shall issue norms/guidelines in tune with Chapter IV Rule 3(2) of KER about the extent of playground necessary in each category of schools mentioned in Chapter IV Rule 1 and also the facilities required in school playground. The above norms/guidelines shall be issued by the Government within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Once the above norms/guidelines are issued, the educational authorities shall see that all the schools in the State are following the same and if any of the schools is not following the same, after giving sufficient opportunity and time to them, stringent action including closure of the school should be ordered.

3. The Registry shall forward a copy of the judgment to the Secretary, General Education Department, State of Kerala, forthwith.”

5. Being aggrieved by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top