Kerala High Court
K.V.M.S Educational Society vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14709 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.V.M.S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.V.M.S HEAD OFFICE
BUILDING RANNI P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689672
2 N. MAHESHAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. K.C NARAYANA PILLAI, KOLLAMPARAMBU PUTHENVEEDU,
MATHRA P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691333
BY ADVS.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
AMAL AMIR ALI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FIRST FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (FORMERLY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION)
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA,
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN -
689645
2025:KER:35459
WP(C)No.14709/2024 2
5 SUBASH KUMAR CG
SUBASH BHAVAN, THANNITHODU, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689699
6 N RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI
THENMAKKAL, ERATHUVADAKARA PO, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686543
7 V. SURESH, ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O . VELLAPPAN PILLAI, WORKING AS VICE PRESIDENT,
K V.M.S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, RESIDING AT 50/50(4)
MNRA-14,THAMARAM KALADY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADVS.
V PHILIP MATHEWS FOR R5
SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN FOR R6
R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL)
ASTRID STEREENA MATHEW(K/001387/2023)
P.K.BABU
SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GOVT. PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2025,THE COURT ON 26.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35459
WP(C)No.14709/2024 3
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is submitted by the petitioners being
aggrieved by Exts. P4, P6 and P9 orders by which the applications
submitted by the petitioners to appoint the 2nd petitioner as the
Manager of V.K.N.M.V.H.S.S., Vayyattupuzha, Pathanamthitta
District was rejected. The 1st petitioner is the President of Kerala
Vellala Maha Sabha (KVMS) governed by Ext.P1 bye-laws approved
by the Educational Authorities concerned. The 2nd petitioner claims
to be the duly elected President of the 1st respondent.
2. The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are
as follows:
The 1st petitioner-Society was formed with an objective to
establish and run different educational institutions at various levels.
As per Ext.P1 bye -laws, the President of the Society will be the
Chairman of the Managing Committee of the 1 st petitioner-Society
and as per Clause 7(h) of the said bye-laws, the Chairman of the
Managing Committee will be the Manager of the educational
institutions under the Society.
3. Earlier, one (Late) Punalur Madhu was appointed as the
2025:KER:35459
Manager of the school referred to above, on 10.04.2013 and his
appointment was approved vide Ext.P2 order. Later, in the election
conducted during the year, 2017, the 2 nd petitioner was elected as
the President of the Society. Thereafter, the said Punalur Madhu
and the 2nd petitioner submitted a joint application, seeking
approval of the 2nd petitioner as the Manager of the School. Since
there was a delay in considering the said application, the
petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.29739/2021,
which was disposed of as per Ext.P3, directing the 4 th respondent to
consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in this
regard. When the aforesaid writ petition came up for consideration,
Ext.P3(a) interim order was also passed directing the Educational
Authorities to grant user login credentials of the Samanwaya portal
to the petitioners.
4. However, the application submitted by the petitioners
was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated
16.12.2022 on the reason that, the term of the petitioner expired
during March, 2019 and no election was conducted. Challenging
Ext.P4 order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the 2 nd
respondent as contemplated under Rule 4(3) Chapter III of K.E.R.
The said appeal was considered by the 2nd respondent and as per
2025:KER:35459
Ext.P6 order, the said appeal was rejected. In Ext.P6, the 2 nd
respondent issued a further direction to the District Educational
Officer to take over the management of the School, as according to
the 2nd respondent, there are several litigations between the
members of the educational agency regarding the management of
the school.
5. Challenging Ext.P6, a Revision Petition was filed by the
1st respondent as contemplated under Rule 4(4), Chapter III of
K.E.R. As there was delay in considering the said application,
WP(C)No.2540/2024 was filed before this Court, which was
disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment. In Ext.P8 judgment, there
was a specific direction to the 1 st respondent to pass orders after
considering the documents produced as Exts.P8 to P12 produced
therein. However, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 1 st respondent,
rejecting the said Revision Petition on the reason that there are
several disputes between the members of the educational society
and several litigations are pending before the Civil Court. This Writ
Petition was submitted by the petitioners challenging Exts.P4,
Ext.P6 and P9 orders.
6. In the writ petition, it was specifically averred that, as
against the results of the election conducted in the year, 2017 in
2025:KER:35459
which the 2nd petitioner was appointed as the President, one of the
members of the educational agency filed O.S.No.70/2017. In the
meanwhile, the 5th respondent in this writ petition and some other
persons had convened a meeting on 25.5.2017 and declared
themselves as the office bearers of this society and therefore
O.S.No.90/2017 was submitted by the Society before the Munsiff
court, Ranni for restraining the defendants therein including the 5 th
respondent herein from acting or representing the office bearers of
the Society. The defendants in O.S.No.90/2017 filed
O.S.No.112/2017 to declare them as the Secretary of the Society
and also to restrain the plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2017 from acting as
the office bearers of the society. All three suits referred to above
were jointly tried and by way of common judgment dated
22.01.2020 the suits numbered as O.S.No.70/2017 and
O.S.No.112/2017 were dismissed. O.S.No.90/2017 filed by the 1 st
petitioner Society for restraining the defendants therein, including
the 5th respondent herein, from acting or representing as office
bearers of the Society was decreed, granting an injunction to that
effect. The appeals were filed by the aggrieved parties before the
District Court, Pathanamthitta. A.S.No.22/2022 filed against
O.S.No.70/2017 was dismissed by the District Court,
2025:KER:35459
Pathanamthitta against which R.S.A.No.653/2022 was filed before
this Court, which is now pending consideration.
7. In the meantime, an election notification dated
5.9.2022 was published proposing to conduct the election to the
Director Board of the Society on 26.02.2023. Exhibit P10 was the
aforesaid notification. The appellant in R.S.A.No.653/2022 filed
I.A.No.1/2023 in the said appeal, seeking an order to restrain the
Society from conducting the election based on Ext.P10. However,
after hearing all the parties to the said appeal, this Court rejected
the said Interlocutory Application by holding that the proceedings
can go on based on Ext.P10. Exhibit P11 is the said order dated
7.2.2023 passed by this court. Accordingly, an election was
conducted on 26.02.2023, in which, the 2nd petitioner was again
elected as the President of the 1st respondent Society. Exhibits
P12(a) and P12(b) are the election results and the decision taken
by the Director Board respectively.
8. According to the petitioners, while so, some of the
persons including the respondents 5 and 6 made an attempt to
grab the management of the Society which compelled the 1 st
respondent Society represented by the 2nd petitioner and the
General Secretary, to file O.S.No.142/2023 before the Munsiff
2025:KER:35459
Court, Ranni, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants
therein from illegally acting as the office bearers of the Society. As
per Ext.P13, an interim injunction order was passed after hearing
all the parties to the suit, restraining the respondents/defendants
therein from representing themselves as the President, General
Secretary and Treasurer and they were also restrained from issuing
communications in the letterhead of the Society. In Ext.P13, a
specific finding was entered into by the Munsiff Court, Ranni, that,
the meeting in which the defendants therein were claimed to have
been elected on 01.10.2023, was not conducted as contemplated in
the bye-laws.
9. Later, yet another suit was filed by the 1 st petitioner as
O.S.No.139/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Ranni seeking
injunction restraining the defendants therein, from interfering with
the administration of the 1st petitioner-Society and committing any
acts obstructing the peaceful administration of the school. Exhibit
P14 is the order of injunction passed in the said suit, in favour
of the 1st petitioner by which the respondents/defendants
therein were restrained from entering into the plaint schedule
property and building therein and from taking forcible possession
of the plaint schedule property by dispossessing
2025:KER:35459
the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. The
respondents/defendants were also restrained from interfering with
the administration of the plaintiff Society and committing any acts
obstructing the peaceful administration of the VKNM HS School.
Even though the said orders are challenged by filing CMA
No.5/2024 before the District Court, as of now, there are no orders
interfering with Ext.P14. Thus, the specific contention of the
petitioners is that, respondents 1, 2 and 4 should not have denied
the legitimate right of the 1st and 2nd petitioners to manage the
affairs of the school, by simply stating that there are several
litigations pending between the members of the Society touching
upon the right of the management. It was in these circumstances,
this writ petition was filed challenging the said orders.
10. The 5th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, in
which it was contended that Ext.P1 is not the bye-law which was
approved by the Educational authorities. The right of the petitioners
to represent the Society was also disputed by them as according to
them, the 2nd respondent was not elected properly as contemplated
under the bye-laws. According to the 5 th respondent, the term of
office bearers of the Society is already expired and no fresh
elections have been held. He also referred to Ext.R5(b) order
2025:KER:35459
issued from the office of the Inspector General of Registration with
regard to the enquiry proposed to be initiated by the Registrar,
Kerala Non Trading Companies & Registration Deputy Inspector
General (Licensing).
11. The 6th respondent also filed a counter affidavit raising
similar contentions that of the 5th respondent by denying the right
of the 2nd petitioner to represent the Society.
12. A reply affidavit was submitted by the petitioner
disputing the averments made by the 5th and 6th respondents in
their respective counter affidavits. Along with the said reply
affidavit, additional documents were also produced to substantiate
their claim.
13. I have heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel for
the petitioners, Smt. K.G.Sarojini, the learned Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 4, Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel
for the 5th respondent and Smt.Shameena Salahudheen, the
learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
14. The sole question that arises for consideration is
whether the rejection of the application submitted by the
petitioners to approve the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the
Manager of the school is legally sustainable or not. As far as the
2025:KER:35459
party respondents are concerned, they have raised various
objections against the reliefs sought, as according to them, the 2 nd
petitioner was never elected, as contemplated under the bye-laws
of the Society. The 5th and 6th respondents have also contended
that Ext.P1 is not the approved bye-laws. However, apart from
raising a contention that Ext.P1 was not the approved bye-laws, no
other materials are produced to substantiate the same and they
have also not produced any bye-laws which according to them was
approved by the authorities concerned. On the other hand, Ext.P1
contains an endorsement to the effect that, the same was approved
as per order No.B4/8774/21 dated 27.10.21 by the Deputy Director
(Education), Pathanamthitta. It is also discernible from the orders
passed by the authorities that, the bye-laws of the 1 st respondent
was approved by the Educational authorities and as per the terms
of the same, the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the
Society has to act as the Manager of the School. The 5 th and 6th
respondents even though contended that, Ext.P1 is not the bye-
laws, no contentions have been raised by them denying the
assertion of the petitioners that, as per the terms of the bye-laws,
the Chairman of the managing committee has to act as Manager of
the Society. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that, the
2025:KER:35459
Chairman of the Governing Committee of the Society has to be
appointed as the Manager of the school.
15. Thus, the question that arises, therefore is, who is the
Chairman of the managing committee of the 1st petitioner-society
as per the documents available on record. It is also to be noted in
this regard that as per the bye-laws, the President has to be the
Chairman of the management committee which is also not
described at all.
16. While examining the said question, it is noted that, in
the year, 2017, an election was conducted, in which, the 2 nd
petitioner was elected as the President of the 1 st petitioner Society.
Even though a challenge was raised against such election, before
the Munsiff Court, Ranni by way of filing O.S.No.70/2017, the same
was rejected as per Ext.P15 which is a common judgment passed in
O.S.No.70/2017, O.S.No.112/2017 and O.S.No.90/2017. The
findings in Ext.P15 would indicate that, the learned Munsiff came to
a specific conclusion that, election was indeed conducted in the
year 2017 in which the 2nd petitioner was elected as the President.
The election claimed to have been conducted and the consequential
election of some of the defendants, was found to be not legally
sustainable as well. Exhibit P15 is confirmed by the appellate court
2025:KER:35459
and the challenge against the same is now pending before this
court as RSA No.653/2022. Thus, as of now, the election
conducted in the year, 2017 is already upheld by the courts
concerned.
17. Now, when coming to Ext.P4 order by which the
application of the petitioners was rejected, it can be seen that the
dismissal was on the reason that the term of the 2nd petitioner had
expired by the time the application was considered. It is also
discernible from the records that, the delay in disposing of the
application apparently occurred as the petitioners concerned failed
to produce an approved bye-laws as well. However, ultimately
they produced the bye- laws which was approved on 27.10.2021
and the Ext.P4 order was passed accordingly.
18. Subsequent to the above, a further election was
conducted based on Ext.P10 notification on 26.2.2023 in which the
2nd petitioner was again elected as the President of the Society.
Even before the said election based on Ext P10, a challenge was
raised against the conduct of election by filing an interlocutory
application before this Court in RSA No.653/2022 which culminated
in Ext.P11 order by which it was rejected. Thus, the election was
conducted based on the approval of this court as evidenced by the
2025:KER:35459
said order. Exhibit P12 series documents would indicate the results
of the election in which the 2 nd petitioner was elected as the
President. None of the party respondents has a case that, the
election as evidenced by Ext.P12 series was challenged by any of
the persons. Moreover, it is evident from Ext.P13 interlocutory
order passed by the Munsiff Court, Ranni in O.S.No.142/2023 that
the defendants therein claimed that, in the general body meeting of
the Society held on 1.10.2023, the office bearers of the society
including the 2nd petitioner were removed and some of the
defendants therein have assumed the charge as the office bearers
of the said Society. However, in Ext.P13 order, the sustainability of
the meeting held on 1.10.2023 was examined and the court arrived
at a prima facie finding that, the same was not properly conducted
and therefore the respondents/defendants therein cannot act as the
President, General Secretary of the Society. Thus, even according
to the defendants therein, one of the purposes of the meeting held
on 01.10.2023 was to remove the office bearers including the 2 nd
petitioner. This fortifies the contention of the petitioners that, on
26.02.2023 an election was conducted in which the 2 nd petitioner
was elected as the President.
19. Similarly, Ext.P14 is yet another interlocutory order passed
2025:KER:35459
by the Munsiff Court, Ranni in O.S.No.139/2023, wherein, the
respondents/defendants therein were restrained from entering into
the property and the building of the school and they were also
restrained from interfering with the administration of the school. In
both these orders, the election conducted on 26.2.2023 wherein
the 2nd petitioner was elected as the President was referred to and
a prima facie finding has been entered into accepting validity of the
election. Thus, when the sequence of events right from 2017 are
examined, it can be seen that, the election in which the 2 nd
petitioner was initially elected as the President of the Society
conducted in the year, 2017 was upheld by the Munsiff Court and
the said finding was already confirmed by the appellate court as
well. As far as the election which is conducted on 26.2.2023, is
concerned, it was based on the approval of this Court as evidenced
by Ext.P11 and the same is not under challenge in any of the
proceedings as well.
20. On the other hand, the election which was conducted
on 26.2.2023 was specifically referred to in Exts.P13 and P14
orders and a prima facie finding in favour of the sustainability of
the said election was entered into by the court concerned as well.
The aforesaid orders are also not interfered with so far even
2025:KER:35459
though the challenge against the same are pending before the
court concerned. Thus, as of now, there are materials to conclude
that an election was indeed conducted on 26.02.2023 and the 2 nd
petitioner was elected as the President of the Society.
21. Now when coming to the impugned orders i.e., Exts.
P4,P5,P6 and P9, it has to be noticed that, in Exts.P6 and P9, the
2nd respondent and the 1st respondent have taken a consistent view
that, since there are litigations between the members of the
Society as to the management of the school, the application of the
petitioner cannot be considered. As per Ext.P6, the 4 th respondent
was directed to assume the charge of the school as a temporary
measure, until the issues are resolved. One of the specific
contentions raised by the petitioners is that, as far as the
Educational agency is concerned, they have a fundamental right to
manage the affairs of the school. According to them, the
circumstances under which the management can be taken over by
the Educational authorities are specifically contemplated under
section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. In this case, no
circumstances as contemplated under the said provision are in
existence, warranting taking over the management. Besides, it was
also the case of the petitioners that, merely because there are
2025:KER:35459
disputes pending between the members of the Educational agency
regarding the management of the school, that would not enable the
Educational authorities concerned to reject the application for
approval of the manager. According to the petitioners, the
Educational authorities ought to have appointed the manager, who
is prima facie eligible to be appointed as the manager. The learned
counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a series of
judgments including, A. Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and
Others [1984 KLT 773], Dr. Philippose Mar Theophilus v.
State of Kerala and Others [MANU/KE/0426/1986], Usman
Kurikkal O.V. v. State of Kerala and Others [2011(2) KHC
867] and Kuthuparamba Educational Society, Kannur and
Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2020(4) KHC 788] etc.
22. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
5th and 6th respondents vehemently contended that the scope of
interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the orders
passed by the Educational authorities is very limited. In this case,
the authorities have examined the matter in detail and taken a
probable view and therefore no interference is warranted. The
reliance was placed on the decisions on Royal Goan Beach
Resorts LLP (M/s.) v. State of Kerala and Another [2020(6)
2025:KER:35459
KLT 831], Mohammed Rafi and others v. Anil Kumar B.S. and
Others [2018 KHC 412] and B.Rajagopal v. Jomy Xavier &
Another[2010 (2) KHC 196] etc. It was also contended that the
decisions of the authorities concerned are within the confines of
reasonableness and therefore, it is not for this court to look further
into their merits.
23. After carefully going through the records, and hearing
the contentions raised by the respective counsels for the parties,
I find considerable merits in the contentions put forward by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1 st and 2nd respondents
have passed Exhibits P9 and P6 orders respectively, only because
of the reason that, since several litigations are pending between
the parties regarding the management of the school, the
application of the 2nd petitioner need not be considered. Thus, the
question that arises is whether is it possible for them to simply
avoid the consideration of the application for approval of the
manager merely because of the pendency of the disputes between
the parties concerned.
24. In this regard, the observations made by this court in
Usman Kurikkal's case (supra) are very much relevant. In the
2025:KER:35459
said decision, after referring to Section 14 of the Kerala Education
Act, it was held that, the right to run an aided school can be
interfered with the Educational authorities only if the conditions
under Section 14(1) of the Act are satisfied and the said provision
reads as follows:
"1) It must appear to the Government that the manager of the
school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by
or under the Act or the Rules made thereunder; and
(2) In the public interest it is necessary to take over the
management of the school."
It was also held that the right of the Educational authorities to
manage the school cannot be deprived on mere whims and fancies
of the Government by taking over the management. It was further
observed that a dispute between some persons who constitute the
Educational agency for management by itself does not constitute a
complete exhaustive reason for taking over the management of the
school in the absence of any of the ingredients of section 14(1) of
the Act. Section 14(1) of the Act is not intended to deal with the
dispute between two or more parties for managership but intended
for a larger purpose and to achieve a wider object.
25. In this case, it is evident that the only reason which
prompted the authorities concerned not to take a decision on the
application on the petitioners, was the pendency of the disputes
2025:KER:35459
between the members of the Educational agency. However, when
the nature and stages of the litigations are carefully scrutinized, it
can be seen that, there are several orders which establish a prima
facie case in favour of the petitioners. Those important factors are
as follows;
(a) The 2017 election, in which the petitioner was elected as
the President, was upheld by a competent Civil Court and
confirmed by the appellate court. The said judgments have not
been interfered with so far.
(b) Based on Ext.P10 election notification, an election was
conducted on 26.2.2023 with the approval of this court as per
Ext.P11, in which the 2 nd petitioner was again elected as the
President, as evidenced by Ext.P12 series.
(c) The result of the election as evidenced by Ext.P12 is not
under challenge before any of the courts concerned.
(d) The election held on 26.2.2023 was specifically referred to
in Exts.P13 and P14 interlocutory orders by the competent Civil
Court and a prima facie finding was entered into by upholding the
legal validity of the same.
(e) More importantly, a meeting claimed to have been held by
the rivals of the petitioners on 1.10.2023, wherein, the office
2025:KER:35459
bearers who were elected on 26.2.2023 were claimed to have been
removed and some other office bearers were elected, was held to
be not properly convened as per the bye-laws.
(f) None of the party respondents has a case that there are
any other elected members who are competent to act as the
President and other office bearers and instead, they are simply
raising a contention that the 2 nd petitioner does not have the
locus standi to represent the first petitioner Society.
26. When all the above aspects are carefully scrutinised,
the only conclusion possible is that there are ample materials to
arrive at a prima facie case that the application submitted by the
petitioners is to be allowed by the authorities concerned. Going by
the nature of the conditions contained in Section 14 of the Kerala
Education Act, which provides for the circumstances under which
the management of the school can be taken over, it can be seen
that the same has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances
where the conditions mentioned therein are clearly established. As
held in Usman's case (supra), mere existence of dispute between
the members of the Educational agency by itself cannot be a
reason to exercise its jurisdiction. As far as the obligations and
duties of the Educational agencies are concerned when considering
2025:KER:35459
the approval of appointment of the Manager, the proper course to
be adopted is to find out the best person to manage the affairs of
the school by keeping view of the welfare of the students of the
institution. As far as the dispute between the members of the
Educational agency is concerned, a final decision has to be taken by
a competent civil court. In this case, as observed above, there is
already a finding in favour of the 2 nd petitioner by a competent civil
court with respect to the election conducted in the year, 2017.
With respect to the election conducted on 26.2.2023 also, there are
findings by the competent civil courts, even though prima facie in
nature. Therefore, the proper course that was available before the
1st and 2nd respondents was to follow the findings of the competent
civil courts and to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner
based on such findings. The Educational authorities should not have
simply refrained themselves from exercising their jurisdiction in
considering the said application merely because of the pendency of
the dispute, particularly when, there are findings entered into by
the competent civil court in favour of the person who is seeking
such approval. Therefore, I do not find any justification on the part
of the 1st respondent and other Educational authorities in taking a
decision not to consider the application of the petitioners for
2025:KER:35459
approval of the appointment of the 2 nd petitioner as the Manager.
The petitioners could establish a strong prima facie case in their
favour through Exts. P13,P14 and P15. For those reasons, some
interference is required in the matter.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P9, with a direction to the 4 th respondent
to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as the manager of
the V.K.N.M.V.H.S.S., Vayyattupuzha, Pathanamthitta District and
the necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period
of one month from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment. It is
clarified that, this order will not preclude the members of the
Educational agency from approaching a competent civil court
against the election of the 2 nd petitioner. It is clarified that, in case
any such orders are passed by the civil court, the order that would
be passed by the 1st respondent in compliance with the directions in
this judgment, shall be subject to such orders.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:35459
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14709/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE K.V.M.S
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY APPROVED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BY ORDER DATED 27-10-2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TRANSFER OF
MANAGER-SHIP APPROVED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
BY ORDER DATED 10.04.2013
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-11-
2022 IN WPC NO. 29739 OF 2021 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23-
12-2021 IN WPC NO. 29739 OF 2021 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
B3/6756/2022 DATED 16-12-2022 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-05-
2023 IN WPC 16751 OF 2023
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. DGE /
14676 / 2021 ET-3 DATED 16-12-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
30-12-2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH
RESPONDENT TO TEACHER IN CHARGE OF
VKNMVHSS
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED
05-01-2024 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ANNEXURES),
ALONG WITH RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-01-
2024 IN WPC 2540 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
2025:KER:35459
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF GO NO. 2425/2024/GEDN DATED
25-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION
DATED 05-09-2022 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING
OFFICER OF KVMS
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-02-2023
IN IA NO. 1 OF 2023 IN RSA NO. 653 OF
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION RESULTS /
DECLARATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE
RETURNING OFFICER OF KVMS DIRECTOR BOARD
ELECTION - 2023
EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KVMS
MINUTES BOOK THAT RECORDS THE MINUTES OF
THE KVMS DIRECTOR BOARD MEETING ON 05-03-
EXHIBIT P12(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KVMS
MINUTES BOOK THAT RECORDS THE MINUTES OF
THE KVMS DIRECTOR BOARD MEETING ON 19-03-
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2023
IN IA NO. 1 OF 2023 IN OS NO. 142 OF 2023
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-12-2023
IN IA NO. 2 OF 2023 IN OS NO. 139 OF 2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 5 (A ) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.06
2023 SUBMITTED BY ME FOR CANCELLATION OF
BYELAW
EXHIBIT R 5 (B ) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO IGR /4708/2023-L3
DATED 29.02.2024 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF
NON-TRADING COMPANY AND REGISTRATION
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
EXHIBIT R 5 (C ) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
2025:KER:35459
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
6.10 .2023 IN WP (C ) NO 32113 OF 2023
EXHIBIT R6 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF
NON TRADING CORPORATION DATED NIL
EXHIBIT R6 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IGR-4708
2023-L3 DATED 29.2.2024 ISSUED BY THE
KERALA NON TRADING COMPANY REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.6.2024
IN T.RP(C) NO. 350 OF 2024 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
22-01-2020 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
IN OS NO.90 OF 2017, OS NO.70 OF 2017 AND
OS NO.112 OF 2017
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.
03/2023-24 DATED 13-08-2023 ISSUED BY THE
GENERAL SECRETARY OF KVMS
EXHIBIT P16(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND AUDITED
ACCOUNTS 2017-23 OF THE KVMS
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 05.09.2023
IN OS NO. 120 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 02.11.2023
IN OS NO. 142 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 24-10-2023
IN OS NO. 245 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-05-
2024 IN OS NO. 90 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
2025:KER:35459
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURT PRINT OUT OF THE
RELEVANT PAGE OF OS 80 OF 2022 OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 88 OF
2023 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,
RANNY
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO. B3/6400/2021 DATED 29-09-2021 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-03-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF
KVMS BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION, KERALA
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-03-
2024 IN OS NO. 84 OF 2020 OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNY
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2023
IN IA NO. 5 OF 2023 IN OS NO. 245 OF 2023
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA
