Kerala High Court
Kumari P vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
WP(C) NO. 25124 OF 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25124 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
KUMARI P.,
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O. LATE NARAYANA MENON, DEVI PARAMBIYATH HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE,
OTTAPALAM-679101.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303.
6 M.K. VISWANATHA MENON,
S/O. LATE K.K. NARAYANAN NAIR, MANU NIVAS,
MARAYAMANGALAM SOUTH, NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-679335.
WP(C) NO. 25124 OF 2019 2
7 SOUMINI M.K.,
D/O. LATE SANTHAKUMARI, MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
8 M.K. SUNIL KUMAR,
S/O. LATE SANTHAKUMARI, MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
9 M.K. GANESH,
S/O. LATE SANTHAKUMARI, MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
10 SMT. M.K. KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA,
D/O. LATE K.K. NARAYANAN NAIR,
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
11 SRI. M.K. MOHANDAS,
S/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
12 SRI. M.K. DEVADAS,
S/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
13 SMT. M.K. GEETHA,
D/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
14 SMT. SATHYABHAMA V.K.,
W/O. LATE M.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
15 SMT. SASIKALA V.K.,
D/O. LATE M.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
16 SMT. BABY V.K.,
D/O. LATE M.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
WP(C) NO. 25124 OF 2019 3
17 SMT. SUSHAMA V.K.,
W/O. LATE M.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, "SOUBHAGYA",
MULLENGIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PULASSERY P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
18 SMT. N.K. VIJAYAKUMARI,
W/O. LATE M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, NEDUMBRAKKAD,
KUNNATH, AMAYUR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679303.
19 SRI. N.K. SURESH,
S/O. LATE M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, NEDUMBRAKKAD, KUNNATH,
AMAYUR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679303.
20 SRI. N.K. RAJESH,
S/O. LATE M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, NEDUMBRAKKAD, KUNNATH,
AMAYUR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679303.
21 SRI. N.K. JAYESH,
S/O. LATE M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, NEDUMBRAKKAD, KUNNATH,
AMAYUR P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679303.
22 ANITHA P.,
D/O. LATE NARAYANA MENON, DEVI PARAMBIYATH HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
23 SHYLAJA P.,
D/O. LATE NARAYANA MENON, DEVI PARAMBIYATH HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
24 BINDU P.,
D/O. LATE NARAYANA MENON, DEVI PARAMBIYATH HOUSE,
PULASSERY P.O., KOPPAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25124 OF 2019 4
JUDGMENT
By Exhibit P14 order, the 3rd respondent approved the bye-laws
framed in respect of the Aided Lower Primary School (ALPS) Amayur North,
an aided School established by a Late Narayanan Nair and by Exhibit P15
order, the 5th respondent approved the appointment of the 6th respondent,
Sri.N.K.Viswanatha Menon, as the manager of the School in accordance with
the bye-laws. The aforesaid orders are challenged in this Writ Petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner as is borne out from the pleadings
are as under:
a) The ALP School, Amayur North is an aided school governed by the
provisions contained in the Kerala Education Act and Rules. After the death
of Narayanan Nair, his legal heirs relinquished their right over the
management with the full understanding that Sri. Narayanan Menon was the
owner of the school. He was accordingly appointed as the Manager. It is
contended that the management continued as an Individual Educational
Agency even thereafter.
b) Sri. Narayanan Menon expired on 2.4.1993 as is evident from
Ext.P2 death certificate and after his death, the management of the school
devolved on the petitioner and her three children, who have been arrayed
as respondents 22 to 24 and they constituted the Corporate Educational
Agency.
c) The respondents 22 to 24 decided to appoint the petitioner as the
Manager of the school and the change of management was without change
of ownership. The 5th respondent granted approval as per Ext.P3 order.
d) While so, the 6th respondent raised a claim over the management
contending that all the legal heirs of the founder had right over the school.
e) Without the concurrence of the petitioner who was then managing
the school, the 6th respondent prepared a bye-law and produced the same
before the 3rd respondent for approval. The respondents 6 to 21 also
produced Ext.P5 decision taken by them on 1.12.2017 wherein it is stated
that the decision to frame bye-laws was with the concurrence of all the legal
heirs except the petitioner and her daughters. The 5th respondent duly
intimated the petitioner of the representations submitted by the 6th
respondent and others, and sought her consent. Later, the 6th respondent
approached this Court and filed a writ petition seeking directions to the
respondents to consider their request. By Ext.P8 judgment, this court
dismissed the Writ Petition. Later, one of the daughters of the founder
approached this Court and filed a review petition which was allowed by
Ext.P9 order and the writ petition was restored. Later, the said writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn.
f) The petitioner contends that thereafter the 6th respondent
prepared Ext.P11 constitution of ALPS, Amayur North and presented the
same before the 5th respondent for approval. However, the consent of the
petitioner was not obtained prior to submission of the same.
g) Immediately thereafter, the 6th respondent approached this Court
and filed a writ petition seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to consider
the approval of the bye-law. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the
request holding that there are irreconcilable disputes between the managing
committee members as regards the constitution and that the bye-law
produced was not attested by the entire members.
h) The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.
(C) No.14502/2019 and by Ext.P13 judgment dated 16.7.2019, this Court
directed reconsideration of the request made by the petitioner.
i) Pursuant to directions so issued, the 3rd respondent heard the
petitioner as well as the party respondents and issued Ext.P14 order
approving the constitution and the rules.
j) Consequent to the same, the 5th respondent passed Ext.P15 order
appointing the 6th respondent as the Manager of the school. The aforesaid
orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. While
admitting that the school was established and owned by late Sri.
K.K.Narayanan Nair, it is submitted that on the death of the founder on
18.4.1976, the ownership of the school came to be vested with the legal
heirs. Ext.R6(a) death certificate and Ext.R6(b) legal heirship declaration is
relied on by the 6th respondent to bring home the point that the late
founder was survived by his wife and six children.
4. It is stated that on the death of the founder, the individual
agency became a corporate educational agency by operation of law. The
legal heirs including the 6th respondent thereafter decided to nominate
Narayana Menon, one of the sons of the founder, as the Manager. His
appointment was approved by the AEO, Pattambi as per Ext.R6(c) order.
Referring to Ext.R6(c), it is contended that even in the order approving
Narayana Menon as the Manager, it has been stated that late Narayanan
Nair was the Manager of the school and on his death, the properties and
management of the school stands devolved on the legal heirs by way of
inheritance. The name and details of the legal heirs have also been
mentioned in the order.
5. According to the 6th respondent, the approval of the
appointment of Narayana Menon was without transfer of ownership and
without framing any bye-laws as laid down under Chapter III Rule 2 of the
KER. While continuing as the Manager, Sri. Narayana Menon expired on
2.4.1993 as is evident from Ext.R6(d). On his death, the legal heirs of Sri.
Narayana Menon and the co-owners including the 6th respondent decided
to nominate the petitioner, wife of late Narayana Menon, as the Manager, of
the school. On the basis of the request made by the co-owners, Ext.R6(e)
order was passed approving the appointment of the petitioner as the
Manager of the school. However, the appointment was without transfer of
ownership. The fact however remained that even then, no rules were
framed and approved by the Department for the management of the
school. The 6th respondent would rely on Ext.R6(f) consent letter issued by
the petitioner on 19.4.1993, the date on which she assume managership as
per which she had undertaken that she would relinquish the office of
managership as and when such request was made by the legal heirs of late
Narayanan Nair.
6. It is further stated that even before the nomination of the
petitioner as a Manager, the wife and two children of late Narayanan Nair
had expired as is evident from Exts.R6(g) to (i).
7. While so, differences cropped up between the legal
representatives of the founder who include the 6th respondent and the
petitioner. The legal representatives were of the opinion that the functioning
of the school was in a disarray. They convened a meeting on 1.12.2007 and
expressed their dissatisfaction with the manner in which the school was
being managed by the petitioner. The meeting was minuted and all the
parties who took part in the meeting except the petitioner and her
daughters affixed their signatures. According to the 6th respondent, on the
death of the founder, as the school had become a corporate educational
agency, it was mandatory to frame rules and get the same approved by the
3rd respondent. In the said circumstances, Ext.R6(m) bye-laws were
prepared and the same was forwarded to the AEO, Pattambi, along with a
consent letter issued by the entire staff seeking to approve the 6th
respondent as the Manager. When no action was taken, the 6th respondent
approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.13314/2018 and this Court by
Ext.R6(q) judgment, took the view that the school continue to be an
individual educational agency with the petitioner herein as the Manager and
without the consent of the present Manager the request made by the 6th
respondent cannot be entertained. Immediately thereafter, R.P.No.99/2019
was filed by M.K.Santhakumari, the sister of the 6th respondent and one of
the legal heirs seeking to review the judgment. By Ext.R6(r) order, this
Court taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Somanatha Pillai
v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 127] and also noting the non-arraying of
the other legal heirs allowed the review petition and the writ petition was
restored back to file. Later, the said writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn.
8. Immediately thereafter, noting that there were some mistakes
in Ext.R6(m) bye-laws, the legal representatives of late Narayanan Nair
convened a meeting and framed a new set of bye-laws on 30.12.2018. The
petitioner and her daughters did not participate. Ext.R6(t) is the bye-law so
framed and it was later forwarded to the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to
directions issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent considered the
submissions of all the legal heirs and passed Ext.R6(v) order declining to
approve the bye-laws for the management of the school on the ground that
the petitioner and her daughters had not affixed their signatures in
Ext.R6(t). This order was challenged by the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)
No.14520/2019 and by Ext.R6(y) judgment, this Court directed the
concerned authority to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders.
Pursuant to the directions so issued, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P14
order approving the bye-laws submitted by the legal heirs. According to the
6th respondent, after the death of late K. Narayanan Nair, the management
of the school has vested with all his legal heirs and has assumed the
character of a Corporate educational agency. It is further contended that
the assertion by the petitioner that the school continues as an individual
educational agency cannot be sustained.
9. Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iqbal, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner has been
managing the school since 1976 and after his death, the petitioner assumed
the role of the Manager, with the consent of all the other legal heirs. It is
contended that while approving the bye-laws, the 3rd respondent took the
view that the petitioner had not produced any documents to prove a change
of ownership. It is contended that it is for the respondents 6 to 21 to
produce documents to show that they have any right over the school. It is
further contended that the petitioner has been managing the school as an
Individual Educational Agency and it was after the death of Sri.
M.K.Narayana Menon that the school became a Corporate Educational
Agency with the petitioner and her daughters constituting the Corporate
Educational Agency. It is further contended that the legal heirs of late
Narayanan Nair had relinquished their right over the school and they cannot
claim any right after several decades of relinquishment of whatever rights
that they had over the school.
10. Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th
respondent submitted that there on the death of the founder, his rights not
having devolved on a particular individual by way of testamentary
dispossession or by way of any personal law and as the rights had devolved
on more than one person, then the Educational Agency will transform itself
into a Corporate Educational Agency. According to the learned counsel Ext.
R6(c) order approving the managership of Narayana Menon would belie the
contention of the petitioner that the property was owned by Narayana
Menon exclusively as in the order itself it is stated that the property has
devolved on the legal heirs of the founder by way of inheritance. The name
and other details of the legal heirs have also been mentioned in the order.
The learned counsel would also refer to Ext.R6 (e) order and R6(f) consent
letter issued by the petitioner to hammer home his contention that the
rights over the school did not exclusively vest in the petitioner or her
children.
11. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and I have
considered the submissions.
12. The first contention of the petitioner is that even on the death
of the founder, the school was being run as an Individual Educational
Agency with the husband of the petitioner as the Manager. Rule 1 of
Chapter III of the KER states that Private Educational Institutions are
classified into two categories as (a) those under individual Educational
Agency and (b) those under Corporate Educational Agency. Where the right
to conduct the school is vested in an individual in his own right or as the
legal representative of a joint family, the Educational Agency shall be
termed 'Individual Educational Agency', and in all other cases the
Educational Agency shall be termed 'Corporate Educational Agency'. It has
been further clarified that "Corporate Educational Agency" shall include
cases where the right is vested in (a) two or more persons jointly with
written registered agreement (b) a Board or Society or Association or
Company or institution registered under a statute or created by a statute (c)
an institution of Trust and (d) an ecclesiastical office of any religious
denomination.
13. In Somanatha Pillai (supra) while interpreting the relevant
provisions of Chapter III of the Rules, a Division Bench of this Court had
occasion to hold as follows in para 2 of the judgment:
2. The management of the School is vested with the 'approved' Manager
as per rules. After the death of an individual who had the right to conduct
the School in his own capacity, his rights are inherited by one or more of
his legal representatives. If it is not devolved on a particular individual by
way of testamentary deposition or by way of personal law and is
devolved on more than one person, it will become a 'corporate
educational agency'. Considering the provisions mentioned in Chapter III
R.2 of the KER, view of the learned Single Judge in Mohamed Kutty's
case that even after the death of an individual educational agency, when
right of management devolves on more than one legal representative, it
will continue as an individual educational agency is not contemplated
under the Educational Rules. The word used in R.1 while differentiating
a joint family is the 'legal representative' and not 'legal representatives',
making it clear that if there are more than one legal representatives, it
will not be an individual educational agency. All educational agencies
other than 'individual educational agency' are termed as a 'corporate
educational agency'.
14. In view of the provisions of the Rules and the law as interpreted
by this Court, the contention advanced by the petitioner that even after the
death of the founder, the individual educational agency continued as such
cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, Exhibit P1 order which is emphatically
relied on by the petitioner would tell a different story. In Exhibit P1 order
conferring managership on the husband of the petitioner, it is stated that
the properties and management of the ALP School, Mayur North devolved
on the legal heirs of the deceased manager by way of inheritance. What
was relinquished by the other legal heirs was their right to be the manager
of the school in favor of Sri M.K. Narayana Menon, the husband of the
petitioner, who incidentally was one of the legal heirs. Furthermore, I find
from Exhibit P3 order dated 22.2.1994 issued by the AEO, Pattambi as per
which the petitioner herein was approved as the manager, it is stated in
unequivocal terms that the transfer of management does not involve a
change of ownership. Exhibit P3 order has to be read in conjunction with
Exhibit R6(f) consent letter issued by the petitioner on 19.4.1993 along with
the application submitted by her for approving her appointment as manager
on the death of her husband. It is stated in Exhibit R6(f) consent letter
issued by the petitioner that her husband, Sri Narayana Menon who was
acting as the manager of the ALP School had expired on 2.4.1993, that a
meeting was held in the family home by all the co-owners of the school,
that they have decided to appoint the petitioner as the manager without
change of ownership and that she shall relinquish the post of manager if
such decision is taken by the other co-owners without any demur and
without raising any objection before the authorities concerned. The
petitioner has no case that Exhibit R6(f) has not been submitted by her.
15. Even otherwise the contention of the petitioner that the
petitioner and her family members are in exclusive ownership of the Schools
cannot be accepted. As per Rule 3 of Chapter III of the KER, the
Management of every aided school may be vested by the Educational
Agency in a person who shall be referred to as the Manager and who shall
be responsible to the department for the management of the institution.
Sub Rule (3) states that in the case of aided institutions under Corporate
management the proprietary body may choose the Manager in accordance
with the rules in that behalf referred to in Rule 2. Rule 4 of Chapter III
states that the Educational Officers shall be competent to approve the
appointment of Managers by Educational Agencies and to approve changes
in the personnel of the Managers. Rule 5A deals with change of
management involving a change of ownership. It states that
notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, no change of Management
of any aided school involving a change of ownership shall be effected except
with the previous permission of the Director. In the case on hand, the
petitioner has no case that either the petitioner or her husband had
approached the director with an application for a change of ownership.
In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that
the petitioner has not made out a case for interference with Exhibit P14 and
P15 orders. This Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps23/9/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25124/2019
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 18.10.1976.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
NARAYANA MENON DATED 16.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.1994.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW PRODUCED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 21 DATED 01.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
20.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).
NO.13314/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
29.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO.
99/2019 IN W.P.(C). NO.13314/2018 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).
NO.13314/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
05.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW FRAMED BY THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF NARAYANAN NAIR DATED
30.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.14520/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
16-07.2019.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 27.08.2019.
RESPONDENT(S)EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
16/3/2018 OF LATE NARAYANAN NAIR ISSUED BY
KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R6(b) COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A4-8242/76 DATED
19/6/1978 APPEARED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
DT.27/7/1976.
EXHIBIT R6(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/10/1976
ISSUED BY THE AEO, PATTAMBI.
EXHIBIT R6(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
16/3/2018 OF LATE NARAYANAN NAIR ISSUED BY
THE PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit R6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/02/1994
ISSUED BY THE AEO, PATTAMBI.
Exhibit R6(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
09/04/1993 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit R6(g) TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
16/03/2018 OF M.K. AMMALU AMMA ISSUED BY THE
KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit R6(h) TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
16/03/2018 OF M.K. JANAKI KUTTY AMMA ISSUED
BY THE KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit R6(i) TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
16/03/2018 OF M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN ISSUED BY
THE KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit R6(j) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/11/2017
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(k) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF
FAMILY MEMBERS DATED 01/12/2017.
Exhibit R6(l) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF
FAMILY MEMBERS DATED 03/02/2018.
Exhibit R6(m) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EDUCATIONAL
AGENCY ADOPTED IN THE MEETING HELD ON
03/02/2018.
Exhibit R6(n) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
15/03/2018 GIVEN BY THE STAFF OF ALPS,
AMAYUR NORTH.
Exhibit R6(o) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KOPPAM GRAMA
PANCHAYATH FOR FITNESS CERTIFICATE.
Exhibit R6(p) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
20/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE AEO, PATTAMBI.
Exhibit R6(q) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2018
IN WPC NO.13314/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit R6(r) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2019
IN RP NO.99/2019 IN WPC NO. 13314/2018 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit R6(s) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2019
IN WPC NO.13314/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit R6(t) TRUE COPY OF THE BY-LAWS FRAMED BY THE LEGAL
HEIRS OF LATE NARAYANAN NAIR.
Exhibit R6(u) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05/03/2019 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(v) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/04/2019
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(w) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2013
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R6(x) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/11/2009
IN WA NO. 2291/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit R6(y) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/07/2019
IN WPC NO. 14520/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
