Transfer Of Aided School Property Without Prior Permission Under S.6 KEA Is Null & Void For Act's Purposes: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-03

Prior Permission Under S.6 KEA Mandatory for Aided School Property Transfer, Rule 5A is Only Procedural: Kerala High Court

---

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the mandatory legal framework for transferring the property of aided schools in the state. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that any sale or transfer of an aided school's property without obtaining prior written permission under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (KEA) is "null and void" for all purposes under the Act and its corresponding Rules.

The Court set aside a Single Judge's order and directed the government to reconsider the entire dispute concerning the ownership and management of the Lower Primary School Pazhedam in Malappuram, emphasizing the distinction between the substantive requirement of Section 6 of the Act and the procedural nature of Rule 5A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER).

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a series of ownership transfers of the L.P. School Pazhedam. The school was eventually sold to N. Sidrathul Munthaha , a part-time teacher at the same institution. Although there is a legal bar on a teacher of a school becoming its manager, the government granted her an exemption. Subsequently, the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) approved the change of management under Rule 5A of Chapter III, KER, on March 7, 2014.

This approval was challenged by other teachers of the school. During the litigation, Ms. Munthaha proposed another individual as the manager, leading to further legal battles. Eventually , a Single Judge of the High Court ruled in her favor, opining that the statutory provisions do not mandate that the owner and manager must be the same person. The present writ appeal was filed by the teachers challenging the Single Judge's decision.

Key Arguments: Section 6 vs. Rule 5A

The appellants (teachers) argued that the entire transaction transferring the school to Ms. Munthaha was void from the outset. Their counsel contended that the transfer violated Section 6 of the KEA, which requires previous permission in writing from a designated officer before any property of an aided school can be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise transferred. They asserted that since this mandatory prerequisite was not met, the sale was invalid, and Ms. Munthaha could neither act as a manager nor nominate one.

In response, counsel for Ms. Munthaha argued that Section 6 was inoperative as the government had not specifically authorized an officer to grant such permission.

Court's Analysis and Distinction

The Division Bench undertook a detailed analysis, distinguishing the scope and purpose of Section 6 of the Act and Rule 5A of the Rules.

The Court held that Section 6 is a substantive provision intended to safeguard the interests of aided schools and their students. It stated:

"The objective behind Section 6 of the Act is to ensure that the property belonging to an aided school is not alienated indiscriminately, jeopardizing the future of the students."

The bench clarified that Rule 5A is merely a procedural rule that governs the recording of a change in management after a legally valid transfer of ownership has occurred. The Court explained:

"Section 6 would come into operation when there is a voluntary transfer or alienation by the owner of the school to a third party... Once a permission is obtained under section 6, the transferee will have to follow the procedure under rule 5A after the transfer and alienation for recording the change in management if it involves such a change."

Rejecting the argument that Section 6 is inoperative, the Court noted that if no specific officer is authorized, the parties must approach the Government directly for prior permission. The Court emphasized the consequence of non-compliance, stating that while the sale document itself may be valid under the Transfer of Property Act, "...it would operate as null and void for all aspects covered under the Kerala Education Act and Rules."

Final Decision and Directions

Acknowledging the "lack of clarity in the law" that led to the prolonged litigation, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's decision and all previous orders by the government authorities. It remanded the entire matter back to the Government for a fresh and comprehensive consideration.

The Government has been directed to hear all parties, including the teachers, and decide the matter afresh under both Section 6 of the KEA and Rule 5A of the KER within three months. The Court left it to the Government to decide whether post-facto approval under Section 6 can be granted in this specific case, without setting a precedent on the matter.