Kerala High Court
Milad-E-Sherief Memorial Trust vs The State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
W.A.No.632 of 2025 1 2025:KER:60464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 632 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.42606 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/:
1 MILAD-E-SHERIEF MEMORIAL TRUST
REG. NO. 5/64, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 690502
2 P.A. HILAL BABU
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O LATE P.K. KUNJU, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690502
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR
SMT.SILPA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
W.A.No.632 of 2025 2 2025:KER:60464
3 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MAVELIKARA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101
4 SHAIK P. HARRIZ
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O HARIZ, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 690502
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.SUDARSANA DEVI
SRI.M.SHAHEED AHMAD
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT
ON 13.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.632 of 2025 3 2025:KER:60464
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42606 of 2024 filed this writ
appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2025 whereby the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
certiorari to set aside Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 of the 2 nd
respondent Additional Director of Public Instructions and a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to approve the 2 nd
appellant as the Manager of PKK Sahib Memorial Higher Secondary
School, Kayamkulam.
2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the 1 st appellant is
an Educational Trust under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,
Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and is
functioning from 01.11.1978. The 2nd appellant is the Secretary of
the Trust and also the Manager of the Institutions under the Trust
in view of Ext P1 approved bylaw of the Trust. The appellants
further pleaded that as per Clause 8(b) of Ext.P1 bylaw, the power
to remove a member is vested with the General Body of the Trust.
W.A.No.632 of 2025 4 2025:KER:60464
As per Clause 9 of Ext.P1, the Executive Committee does not have
any power to remove a member or an office bearer. The 2 nd
appellant was elected as the Secretary- Cum-Manager in the
General Body of the Trust held on 26.10.2019. By Ext.P2 notice
dated 05.02.2024, a meeting of the General Body of the Trust was
scheduled on 18.02.2024. While so, the 4 th respondent and his
men, including a few office bearers of the Trust, called a meeting
of the Executive Committee on 16.02.2024. They claimed that a
decision was taken to expel the 2nd appellant and to appoint the
4th respondent as the Manager. By relying on the Clauses in Ext.P1,
the appellants pleaded that the power to expel a member is vested
only with the General Body and the meeting allegedly held on
16.02.2024 is not as per the bylaw.
2.1. It is the further case of the appellants that the meeting
convened by the 4th respondent and others was intended only to
create forged seals of the Trust and also to forge documents, to
get the administration of the Trust. The 4 th respondent and his
men committed some criminal offences, and hence the 2 nd
appellant filed a complaint before the Police and Ext.P2(a) FIR
bearing crime No.235 of 2024 of Kayamkulam Police Station was
W.A.No.632 of 2025 5 2025:KER:60464
registered on 26.02.2024. When the General Body was convened
on 18.02.2024, various members moved resolutions against the
4th respondent and other persons who have participated in the
Executive Committee meeting on 16.02.2024. The General Body
expelled the 4th respondent and other persons who have acted
against the best interest of the Trust, expressing their no
confidence, from the Executive Committee. New office bearers
were also elected in that meeting, and in pursuance of the election
conducted in the General Body meeting, the list was duly produced
before the District Registrar. Then Ext.P5(a) proposal dated
27.04.2024 was submitted to the 3rd respondent District
Educational Officer, along with an application for change of
management.
2.2. The appellants state that by Ext.P6 proceedings dated
16.02.2024, the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer, in
collusion with the 4th respondent, approved the 4 th respondent as
the Manager, despite receipt of the intimation regarding the
constitution of the new Executive Committee. In the application
submitted by the 4th respondent for transfer of management,
wrong informations are furnished. Ext.P6 proceedings were
W.A.No.632 of 2025 6 2025:KER:60464
therefore challenged by the appellants by filing W.P.(C)No.15662
of 2024. In that writ petition, Ext.P7 judgment dated 29.05.2024
was passed by this Court directing the 2 nd respondent to pass an
appropriate order in the statutory appeal preferred by the
appellants, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of that judgment. It was further directed in that
judgment that if a stay petition is filed within a period of one week,
the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders after hearing all
the parties within two weeks of receipt of the stay petition.
2.3. The appellants, along with other office bearers of the
Trust, filed a civil suit as O.S. No.149 of 2024 before the Munsiff
Court, Kayamkulam, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction
against the 4th respondent and his men from interfering with the
administration and management of the Trust acting as the
Manager. By Ext.P8 order dated 09.05.2024, an ad interim
injunction was granted by the Civil Court. In pursuance of the
direction in Ext.P7 judgment, the appellants have filed Ext.P9 stay
petition dated 07.06.2024 before the 2nd respondent. Taking
advantage of the delay in pronouncing the orders by the 2 nd
respondent, the 4th respondent and his men were trying to cause
W.A.No.632 of 2025 7 2025:KER:60464
prejudice to the functioning of the school. Meanwhile, the ad
interim injunction granted in O.S.No.149 of 2024 was also vacated
as per Ext.P12 order dated 25.06.2024. Immediately after
vacating the interim injunction, the 4 th respondent and his men
attempted to disrupt the functioning of the school.
2.4. The appellants then approached this Court again by
filing W.P.(C)No.23652 of 2024 seeking a direction to respondents
1 and 2 to entrust the Deputy Director of Education to be put in
charge with the administration of the school, appointing him as
the Manager till the veracity of Ext.P6 proceedings is finalised. This
Court passed Ext.P13 interim order dated 02.07.2024 in that writ
petition. In furtherance of Ext.P13 order, the Director General of
Education passed Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024, staying Ext.P6
and appointing the 3rd respondent as the temporary Manager of
the school.
2.5. Ext.P14 order passed by the Director of General
Education was challenged before this Court by the appellants to
the extent to which the District Educational Officer was appointed
as the Manager of the school. That writ petition was initially heard
W.A.No.632 of 2025 8 2025:KER:60464
along with W.P.(C)No.23652 of 2024. While so the appeal filed
against Ext.P12 order was allowed by the Additional District Court,
Mavelikkara and by virtue of Ext.P15 judgment dated 30.09.2024
in C.M.A. No.22 of 2024 an order of injunction restraining the 4 th
respondent and his men from acting as the office bearers of the
1st appellant Trust and also injuncting the 4 th respondent from
interfering with and obstructing the administration and affairs of
the Trust was ordered.
2.6. W.P.(C)No.25455 of 2024 filed by the appellants against
Ext.P14 was disposed of by Ext.P17 judgment dated 28.10.2024,
directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal filed by
the appellants. The 2nd respondent then issued Ext.P20 order
dated 26.11.2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants
and permitting the District Educational Officer to continue as the
Manager of the school. Then the appellants approached this Court
with W.P.(C)No.42606 of 2024, which resulted in the impugned
judgment.
3. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent filed a counter
affidavit dated 03.03.2025 opposing the reliefs sought and
producing therewith Exts.R4 (a) and R4(b) documents.
W.A.No.632 of 2025 9 2025:KER:60464
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition holding that the departmental authorities cannot enter
into the issues pertaining to the conduct of elections to a public
Trust which is to be contested by the parties before a court of law
and the authorities noted that the disputes are pending before the
civil courts and therefore there is no illegality in the decision of
the 2nd respondent to appoint the District Educational Officer as
the temporary Manager of the school.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for the 4th respondent and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would argue
that when the approval granted in Ext.P6 proceedings appointing
the 4th respondent as the Manager was interfered with by the
Director of General Education by Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024,
the natural consequence ought to have been to allow the person
who has been holding the office of the Manager prior to Ext.P6
proceedings. Ext.P6 is a proceeding obtained fraudulently, as it
is evident that the name of the school is shown as 'individual' at
W.A.No.632 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60464
the place of a 'corporate' which ought to have been entered
therein, since the school is managed by a Trust. Similarly, when a
dispute exists regarding the change of management, in column
No.9 of Ext.P6, it is shown that there is no dispute. In column
No.10, it is stated that the present Manager was removed on
16.02.2024 by a no-confidence motion passed by the Executive
Committee of the Trust, when no such Executive Committee was
held on that day. Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the
2nd respondent is also a cryptic order without reasoning. The
learned Single Judge failed to properly analyse the issue of
entrustment of administration to the District Educational Officer in
Ext.P14 order, which was continued in Ext.P20 also. The order
passed by this Court in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024 appointing an
Advocate Commissioner to conduct a fresh election is also
fundamentally wrong. The consent given for conducting the
election by the appellants was only to make peace and to avoid
prolonged litigation. According to the learned Senior counsel, in
Ext.P15 judgment dated 30.09.2024 in C.M.A. No.22 of 2024 by
the Additional District Court, Mavelikara, a detailed analysis of the
issue was made and the court injuncted respondents 1 to 9 therein
W.A.No.632 of 2025 11 2025:KER:60464
from acting or representing as the Executive Committee members
and office bearers of the 1st appellant Trust and further restrained
them from interfering or obstructing in anyway with the general
administration of the affairs of the 1st appellant Trust. The learned
Single Judge failed to note these aspects in its right perspective.
The learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that there is no
provision in the Kerala Education Rules, for the 2 nd respondent to
appoint the District Educational Officer as the Manager of the
school. Under the 1st appellant Trust, there is only one school,
and the 2nd appellant was the Manager till Ext.P6 order. Therefore,
the interference of this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction
under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is highly
warranted.
7. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent would submit
that the learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions of
the parties in detail in the impugned judgment and held that in
Ext.P20 order the 2nd respondent rightly found that there is no
illegality in the decision of the 2 nd respondent to appoint the
District Educational Officer as temporary Manager of the school,
till a decision is taken in the dispute by the Civil court.
W.A.No.632 of 2025 12 2025:KER:60464
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that
Ext.P20 order was passed by the 2 nd respondent considering the
fact that a civil dispute is pending pertaining to the management
of the subject school. Only till a decision is taken by the Civil Court,
considering the present situation, the District Educational Officer
was ordered to be continued as Manager. Hence, no interference
is needed by this Court on the impugned judgment.
9. The dispute in the instant case pertains to the
management of the school run by the 1 st appellant Trust. When
the appellants say that by the Special General Body meeting held
on 18.02.2024, a new Executive committee was selected and
expelled the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent would contend
that the Executive Committee met on 16.02.2024, appointed the
4th respondent as the Manager of the school by expelling the 2 nd
appellant. It was on the basis of the decision of the Executive
Committee that was claimed by the 4th respondent as taken place
on 16.02.2024, Ext.P6 application was submitted by the 4 th
respondent for change of management. However, on going
through Ext.P6, it is evident that the 3 rd respondent has not
passed a speaking order in that application. There are some facts
W.A.No.632 of 2025 13 2025:KER:60464
stated in Ext.P6 against the admitted position as pointed out by
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, such as the name
of the school is shown as 'individual' instead of 'corporate', and
also that there is no dispute in the change of management.
Similarly, the entry that the present Manager was removed on
16.02.2024 by a no-confidence motion unanimously passed by the
Executive Committee of the Trust, as entered in Ext.P6 is also
under dispute between the parties.
10. In pursuance to the direction of this Court in Ext.P7
judgment in W.P.(C)No.15662 of 2024, the challenge against
Ext.P6 order was considered by the Director General of Education
and by Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024, Ext.P6 order was stayed,
holding that the said order was passed without following the
procedure. The contention of the appellants is that since Ext.P6
order was stayed by Ext.P14 order, the Director of General
Education ought to have permitted the 2 nd appellant to continue
as the Manager of the school. However, as held by the learned
Single Judge, a reading of Ext.P14 order of the Director of General
Education, it is evident that the appointment of the District
Educational Officer is only as a temporary measure.
W.A.No.632 of 2025 14 2025:KER:60464
11. The issue pertaining to the management of the Trust is
admittedly under consideration in a suit instituted between the
parties as O.S.No.149 of 2024 before the Munsiff Court,
Kayamkulam. Apart from that, in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024 pending
before this Court, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed
on consensus to conduct a fresh election. During the course of
arguments, the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent made
available for the perusal of this Court the report submitted by the
Returning Officer/Commissioner appointed by this Court by the
order dated 24.01.2025 in O.P.(C)No.2753 of 2024. From that
report, we notice that the process of preparing a draft voters list
of the members of the Trust is in progress.
12. In Ext.P17 judgment dated 28.10.2024 passed in
W.P.(C)No.25455 of 2024, the challenge was against Ext.P14 order
dated 02.07.2024. The learned Single Judge while directing the
Director of General Education to pass orders in the appeal
preferred against Ext.P14 order held at paragraph 17 that the
prayer of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 23652 of 2024 was to
entrust the administration of the school with the Deputy Director
of Education, for an impartial and fair administration, till the
W.A.No.632 of 2025 15 2025:KER:60464
appeal is finalised. Since the Deputy Director manages a
significant workload, the Director has entrusted the administration
of the school with the District Educational Officer for its smooth
functioning. The decision cannot be said to be irrational or
perverse. Observing as above, the learned Single Judge held that
there is nothing wrong with Ext.P14 order passed by the Director,
warranting interference of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge further directed
the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal preferred by the
appellants and accordingly, Ext.P20 order was passed by the 2 nd
respondent. However, on going through Ext.P20, we notice that
the said order is a cryptic one and passed without even considering
the rival contentions raised by the parties concerned. It is true
that a civil dispute is pending between the parties pertaining to
the management of the Trust. Even then, when an appeal is
maintainable under Chapter III, Rule 4 of the Kerala Education
Rules against the decision of the District Educational Officer before
the 2nd respondent, he ought to have considered the rival
contentions and passed a reasoned order. The learned Single
Judge did not consider these aspects in their proper perspective.
W.A.No.632 of 2025 16 2025:KER:60464
In such circumstances, the instant writ appeal is disposed of
by setting aside Ext.P20 order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the
2nd respondent and directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh
orders in the appeal filed by the appellants in the light of the
observations made above, 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 the parties an opportunity of
hearing. Whether the District Educational Officer can continue as
the Manager of the school or whether the 2 nd appellant who was
previously holding the post of Manager should be permitted to
officiate as the Manager, since Ext.P14 order dated 02.07.2024
stayed Ext.P6 order of the District Educational Officer allowing the
change of Manager till a decision is taken in the Civil suit, is also
left open to be decided in that proceedings.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
