Joseph Kattathara vs Joseph Kattathara
2021 Latest Caselaw 4117 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

        THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942

                    RP.No.85 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27380/2020

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27380/2020(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.3:

                 JOSEPH KATTATHARA,
                 AGED 59 YEARS
                 S/O.SCARIA, KATTAHARA HOUSE, KARIPPAL PO.,PERUMPADAVU,
                 KANNUR - 670 581.

                 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

       1         VELLAKKAD MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAHIMAN
                 MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REG. NO.971/79, VALLAKKAD,
                 KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 581.
                 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT A.P. SATHAR, AGED 41 YEARS,
                 S.O.IBRAHIM, VELLAKKAD, PO KARIPAL, VELLORA AMSOM,
                 THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

       2         THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
                 KANNUR DISTRICT, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, 670001.

       3         THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA SUB DISTRICT,
                 TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 141.

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.85 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27380/2020

                                      2




                              ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment

dated 17.12.2020, asserting that the petitioner herein is the

newly elected President of the Vellakkad Muhammad Abdul

Rahiman - Memorial Educational Society, while the writ petition

was filed by Sri.A.P.Sathar, stating to be representing the said

Society as its elected President.

2. The review petitioner asserts that the averments in

the writ petition, to effect that Sri.A.P.Sathar and others

mentioned in Ext.P4 were duly elected, is wholly incorrect and

that no valid elections had been conducted to select them; while

he had been so elected through a process of law.

3. The review petitioner further, submits that the

directions in the judgment, sought to be reviewed, is now being

misinterpreted by the writ petitioner and his men, as if this

Court has granted imprimatur to their alleged election and that

consequently, they are impressing the Assistant Educational

Officer (AEO) that he must grant them approval on such basis.

4. In response to the submissions made on behalf of the

review petitioner by Sri.Mahesh Ramakrishnan, the learned

counsel appearing for the writ petitioner -- Sri.K.N.Abhilash, RP.No.85 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27380/2020

submitted that no information has been kept away from this

Court and that the pleadings would show the full nature of the

disputes between the rival parties. He submitted that all that

was prayed for in the writ petition was that the communication

made by his client and others, elected by the Society, be granted

approval and that this Court has only directed the AEO to do so,

after following due procedure. He submitted that, if, during such

exercise, the petitioner or any other person requires to be

heard, it can also be allowed and that his client does not assert

that even without such approval, they are entitled to assume

office based on their election.

5. When I consider the afore submissions and examine

the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is indubitable that I had

only directed the AEO to consider Ext.P4 representation of the

petitioner and to take a decision thereon. This Court had not, in

any manner, dealt with the internecine disputes between the

rival parties and obviously, therefore, the AEO will be enjoined

to grant approval to Ext.P4 only if it is found that the persons

mentioned therein have been validly elected and that they are

entitled to be granted approval in terms of law.

6. In such perspective, I fail to understand why the RP.No.85 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27380/2020

petitioner should be aggrieved, except that the judgment does

not specifically said that he should also be given an opportunity

of being heard, so that he can impell his contentions before the

AEO.

In the afore circumstances, I order this review petition to

the limited extent of modifying the judgment dated 17.12.2020,

thus directing the AEO to complete the exercise as ordered

therein, only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner or to any other person who may stake a rival claim.

I make it clear that in the judgment, sought to be reviewed,

I had not considered the merits of any of the assertions of the

writ petitioner and that all of them are left open to be

considered by the AEO appropriately, after assessing the rival

contentions, as also the documents that may be produced by two

sides in substantiation of their respective plea.

SD/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                  JUDGE
 RP.No.85 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 27380/2020





                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1                TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ELECTION GENERAL

BODY MEETING OF THE SOCIETY HELD ON 20/2/2018.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 20/02/2018.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/1076/2020 DATED 17/09/2020 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KANNUR.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/08/2020 IN WP(C) NO.448 OF 2020.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/07/2020 IN WP(C) NO.13505/2020.