Kerala High Court
Penn Gurudas vs The Assistant Educational ... on 24 November, 2021
WP(C) NO. 26480 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26480 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
PENN GURUDAS,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.(LATE) GURUDAS, RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN, VELIYAM
P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691540.
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/S:
THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
SUB-DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, VELIYAM,
ODANAVATTOM P.O., KOTTARAKARA-691512, KOLLAM.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26480 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Late Sri.Narayana Panicker, the grandfather of the petitioner, was the
founder of the Lower Primary Girls' School, which is situated at Veliyam. It
appears from the averments in the writ petition that the brother of the
petitioner is the present Manager of the School. It appears that raising
various contentions, the brother of the petitioner, who has not been made a
party to this writ petition, instituted O.S.No.285 of 2021 before the Munsiff
Court, Kottarakara, and secured an order of injunction against the petitioner
herein. The petitioner on the other hand contends that the Manager is acting
against the Provisions of the Act and Rules. Narrating his grievances, the
petitioner has preferred Exhibit-P3 representation before the respondent. The
grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 is not being taken up and considered
in an expeditious manner. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking directions to the respondent to dispose of Exhibit-P3
representation and for incidental reliefs.
2. Sri. Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that there is no justification on the part of the respondent in
delaying the consideration of Ext.P3 representation.
3. Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted
that the person against whom serious allegations are raised in the
representation has not been made a party to the writ petition. However, it is
submitted that if this Court is inclined to issue directions as prayed for,
necessary directions be issued to hear the version of the Manager as well.
4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ
petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at
the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:
a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions
made in the representation, there will be a direction to the
respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on
Ext.P3, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either
physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised
representative as well as the Manager of the LPGS, Veliyam.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any
event, within a period of one month from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ
petition along with the judgment before the concerned
respondent for further action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26480/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.285 OF
2021 DATED 19.07.2021 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA FOR INJUNCTION
(AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION) DATED 19.7.2021
ALONG WITH THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES IN
OS 285/21.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT ITS ANNEXURES.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
