A.P.Kunhammad vs The District Educational Officer ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18133 Ker

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021      1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          A.P.KUNHAMMAD
          AGED 75 YEARS
          S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, GENERAL SECRETARY, C.H.MUHAMMED
          KOYA MEMORIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE,
          CHAKKIAT, P.O.THILLANKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING
          AT CHIKKIAT HOUSE, KAVUMPADI, THILLANKERI P.O.,
          KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702

          BY ADVS.
          M.SASINDRAN
          S.SHYAM KUMAR



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY
          THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 001

    2     T.MAJEED,
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. KUNHAMBU HAJI, BAITH UI FALAH, THILANKERI P.O.,
          IRITTY TLAUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702

          BY ADVS.
          R.SURENDRAN
          S.MAYUKHA


          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021                   2

                                      JUDGMENT

There are disputes between the persons in management of the CH

Mohammed Koya Memorial Higher Secondary School. Both the petitioner as

well as the 2nd respondent claim managership. It appears from Exts.P6 and P9

judgments, that directions were earlier issued by this Court to consider the

request. The petitioner contends that Ext.P8 representation submitted by the

petitioner before the 1st respondent is not being considered on the ground that

the direction issued by this Court was only to consider the application of the

2nd respondent. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed

seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P10 expeditiously within two weeks.

(ii) to command the 1st respondent to consider the Exts.P8 and P10 request for approval of the managership, along with the application made by the 2nd respondent which was directed to be disposed of in Ext.P9 judgment.

(iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be approved as Manager of the School, based on the resolution adopted by the committee.

.

2. I have heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his

only request is for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider

Exhibit P8 and P10 request and take a decision expeditiously. The learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that he has no objection in

allowing the said request. However, it is pointed out that the 2nd respondent

has already been heard but no orders have been passed to date.

4. I have also heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

Pleader who submits that there is no impediment in considering the said

prayer.

5. 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 by issuing the

following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions made

in the representations submitted by either party, there will be a

direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass

appropriate orders on Exts.P8 and P10 as well while considering

the application filed by the 2nd respondent. Both parties shall be

afforded an opportunity of being heard, either physically or

virtually.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of two months 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.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16500/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW APPROVED BY THE EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY DATED 08.08.2012

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/6627/10DATED 11.09.2012

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/6987/19/K.DIS DATED 30.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3A A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2020 VIDE ORDER NO.EM4/9002/2020/DGE/K.DIS

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P5A A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2009 IN WPC 27853 OF 2020

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 17.01.2021 OF THE C.H.MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, DATED 06.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEO

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.201 IN WPC NO.11750 OF 2020

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL