1. The court observed that statutory notice is the only obligation for closure and that certain subordinate rules requiring government sanction are ultra vires the parent Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
MANAGER PALAMPADAM LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 34267/2025
Important Points
A manager of a private aided school can close the institution by providing one year's statutory notice. No government permission is required, and closure is deemed automatic upon expiry of the notice period. Subordinate rules requiring government sanction for closure are ultra vires the parent Act.
Subject
Education Law - School Administration
Act Referred
Kerala Education Rules: R.24, R.25, R.26
Right to Information Act: S.6
Kerala Education Act 1958: S.7(6), S.14(1)
Constitution of India: Art.19(1)(g)
Right To Education Act: S.38, S.38(1), S.38(2)
Kerala Rules, 2011: R.6(10)
Right to Information Act: S.6
Kerala Education Act 1958: S.7(6), S.14(1)
Constitution of India: Art.19(1)(g)
Right To Education Act: S.38, S.38(1), S.38(2)
Kerala Rules, 2011: R.6(10)
Headnote
(A) Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Chapter V Rule 24 - Kerala Education Act, 1958 - Section 7(6) - Closure of private schools - Requirement of one year's notice - Whether permission from the Director is mandatory for closure - The only obligation of the manager is to give one year's notice of the intention to close down the school - Once the statutory notice period expires, there is an automatic or deemed closure of the school. (Paras 12, 13, 17)
(B) Right to Education Act - Kerala Rules, 2011 - Rule 6(10) - Requirement of recommendation and prior sanction for closure - Rule 6(10) is ultra vires the parent Act as it travels beyond the scope of the rule-making authority - Subordinate legislation cannot restrict the manager's rights recognized under the parent Act. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The manager of a primary school with significantly reduced student strength issued a statutory notice to the education authorities expressing the intention to close the school. Despite a previous court direction to consider the request, the authorities failed to pass orders. Subsequently, the authorities directed the manager to carry out repairs, which the manager refused, claiming the school was deemed closed upon the expiry of the notice period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory notice was duly issued and the one-year period had elapsed without any response from the authorities. Consequently, the school is considered deemed closed.
Issues: Whether the school is deemed closed upon the expiry of the statutory notice period provided under the education rules and whether the requirement for government sanction under subordinate legislation is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions for closure of private schools do not require "permission" but only a statutory notice. Once the notice period expires, closure is automatic. Furthermore, rules framed under the Right to Education Act that impose additional sanctions for closure are ultra vires the parent Act and cannot override the statutory rights of the manager.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order directing repairs set aside; deemed closure declared; authorities directed to pass consequential orders within one month.
(B) Right to Education Act - Kerala Rules, 2011 - Rule 6(10) - Requirement of recommendation and prior sanction for closure - Rule 6(10) is ultra vires the parent Act as it travels beyond the scope of the rule-making authority - Subordinate legislation cannot restrict the manager's rights recognized under the parent Act. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The manager of a primary school with significantly reduced student strength issued a statutory notice to the education authorities expressing the intention to close the school. Despite a previous court direction to consider the request, the authorities failed to pass orders. Subsequently, the authorities directed the manager to carry out repairs, which the manager refused, claiming the school was deemed closed upon the expiry of the notice period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory notice was duly issued and the one-year period had elapsed without any response from the authorities. Consequently, the school is considered deemed closed.
Issues: Whether the school is deemed closed upon the expiry of the statutory notice period provided under the education rules and whether the requirement for government sanction under subordinate legislation is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions for closure of private schools do not require "permission" but only a statutory notice. Once the notice period expires, closure is automatic. Furthermore, rules framed under the Right to Education Act that impose additional sanctions for closure are ultra vires the parent Act and cannot override the statutory rights of the manager.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order directing repairs set aside; deemed closure declared; authorities directed to pass consequential orders within one month.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Renjith, Manjusha K
For the Respondents: Rukhiyabi Mohammed Kunhi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Renjith, Manjusha K
For the Respondents: Rukhiyabi Mohammed Kunhi
Table of Contents
2. A manager of a private aided school may close the institution upon expiry of the one-year statutory notice period without requiring further permission from authorities. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Is prior permission from the Director required to close a private aided school under the Kerala Education Rules?
No. The manager's only obligation is to provide one year's notice of the intention to close. The right to close the school is preserved subject to this notice period, and no explicit permission is necessary. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Does the failure to hand over records or discharge liabilities prevent the legal closure of a school?
No. Requirements to hand over records and accounts or discharge financial guarantees are obligations that arise after the closure has occurred and do not prevent the actual closure of the school. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“i. Declare that there is deemed closure of Palampadam L P school, Chotty, on the expiry of statutory notice period as provided under Chapter V Rule 24 of the KER.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to take a decision to close down the school as requested by the petitioner vide Exhibits P2 to P4 and P6.
iii. Call for records leading to Exhibits P12 and may quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.
iv. Issue such other relief’s as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
v. Dispense with the production of translation of documents in vernacular language.”(SIC)
2. Petitioner is the Manager of Palampadam Lower Primary School, Chotty, Kanjirappally. The school has standards I to IV. Going by the staff fixation order issued by the 5th respondent on 25.6.2018, the school had a total strength of 23 students. The posts in existence in the school were Headmaster and 4 Lower Primary School Assistants. Ext. P1 is the staff fixation order. It is submitted that, though there were 23 students in 2018, the total effective student strength is now 12, and the total staff strength, including the Headmistress, is 3. The school was started in 1937 to cater to the educational needs of the children of estate labourers. Now, many of such families have shifted to distant places, and several English Medium Schools have also started functioning in the area, is the petitioner's submission. Thus, there is no scope for increase in student strength in the near future, and no purpose will be served in continuing the functioning of the school, is the submission of the petitioner, who is the Manager of the school. Pointing out these aspects, the petitioner issued Ext.P2, a notice dated 14.5.2018 to the 2nd respondent, as provided under Chapter V Rule 24 of KER, inter alia, seeking permission to close down the school. A copy of Ext. P2 was also given to respondents 3 and 4, as evidenced by Exts. P3 and P4. In response to Exts. P2 to P4, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P5, directing the petitioner to route the notice through the proper channel. As directed in Ext. P5, the petitioner issued a fresh notice seeking permission to close down the school; however, the petitioner stated that, since he has not kept a copy, he is unable to produce it. It is submitted that there was absolutely no action on Exts. P2 to P4 and, faced with that situation, the petitioner submitted fresh notice through proper channels, as evident from Ext. P6. In Ext. P6, it was specifically pointed out by the petitioner that the notice period as provided under Chapter V of KER was over by 31.05.2019. Since no action was taken by the 2nd respondent on the notices issued, Ext.P7 application dated 10.10.2019 was submitted by the petitioner before the State Public Information Officer, Office of the 2nd respondent, under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act. But the information was not given, is the submission.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.33454/2019 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to take immediate steps to close down the school. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the notices issued, as evident from the Ext.P8 judgment. Ext.P8 was communicated to the respondents along with a covering letter, as evident from Ext.P9, is the submission. Even then, the respondents did not respond. Meanwhile, Ext.P10 letter was issued by the Headmistress to the petitioner, requesting to take immediate action on the matters mentioned therein. In response to Ext.P10, Ext.P11 reply was submitted by the petitioner before the Headmistress as well as the 5th respondent. In Ext.P11, the petitioner specifically pointed out that there is a deemed closure of the school and hence he is not liable to carry out any work, as suggested in Ext.P10. The
