Rajeev Kumar V.J vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22141 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 24155 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

     1     RAJEEV KUMAR V.J.
           AGED 59 YEARS
           KALARIKKAL VEEDU, CHERUPOIKA P.O., PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA,
           KOLLAM - 691 507.

     2     KRISHNA KUMARI B.S.
           "ASWATHI", PAVITHRESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM - 691
           507.

           BY ADVS.
           P.NANDAKUMAR
           AMRUTHA SANJEEV



RESPONDENT/S:

     1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
           GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     2     DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
           JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

     3     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM - 691 009.

     4     MANIKUTTAN NAIR
           MANAGER, K.N.N.M.V.H.S.S., PAVITHRESWARAM, KOLLAM - 691
           507.


OTHER PRESENT:

           GP BIJOY CHANDRAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24155 OF 2021                2



                           JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the trustee members of an

educational Agency, which is managing a school. The

previous manager executed a power of attorney to appoint

his brother to function as the manager. The first petitioner

objected to the execution of the power of attorney and the

DEO by order dated 05.03.2020, rejected the request for

approval stating that the function of the manager cannot be

delegated. Thereafter without convening a meeting said

Manikuttan Nair, who was authorised on the strength of the

power of attorney, proposed his own name, which was

approved by the DEO. Against that order, a revision was

filed before the second respondent. The second respondent

issued the order dated 02.09.2021, rejecting the revision.

The petitioners have filed Ext.P4 revision challenging it,

along with stay petition filed as Ext.P4(a).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 and

Ext.P4(a) have not been taken up and heard, in spite of

considerable delay. After hearing the learned counsel for

the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for

respondents No.1 to 3, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition at the threshold, without issuing notice to the fourth

respondent, directing the first respondent to take up,

consider and dispose of Exts.P4 and P4(a) on merits, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being

heard to the petitioners and the fourth respondent either

physically or online.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24155/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/02/2021 BY THE DEO KOTTARAKARA.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 14/09/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 14/09/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.