J U D G M E N T
C.S.Sudha, J.
This intra court appeal is against the judgment dated 10/08/2022 in W.P.(C) No.24272/2022. The appellants are the petitioners and the respondents herein, the respondents in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P12 order of the 2nd respondent dismissing Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners before the first respondent. According to the petitioners, they are members of the Kuttiyil family and are trustees of C.M.Ibrahimkutty charitable trust. Milad-e-Sheriff Higher Secondary School, Mynagappally is owned by the Kuttiyil family. Petitioners are the members of the family and the members of the trust for the management of the school. Adv.C.M.Ibrahimkutty, who was the Manager of the school died on 03.03.2020. No one has been appointed or approved as Manager as per Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules (KER). The 7threspondent, one of the daughters of late Ibrahimkutty is trying to takeover the management of the school by devious methods
4
by excluding the petitioners and on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. By Ext.P5 order, the 6threspondent rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners and approved the bye-laws submitted by the 7threspondent, which bye-law has been created on the strength of forged and fabricated documents. Aggrieved, the petitioners had preferred an appeal against Ext.P5 order. However, the 4threspondent as per Ext.P6 order approved Ext.P5 order and rejected the appeal of the petitioners. Against Ext.P6 order, the petitioners moved Ext.P7 revision before the 1strespondent. The 2ndrespondent by Ext.P12 order has rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence the writ petition seeking quashing of Exts.P5, P6 and P12 orders and for directing the 2ndrespondent to reconsider Ext.P7 revision afresh.
3. The learned Single Judge on 26/07/2022 had granted an interim stay by which further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 was directed to be stayed for a period of one week. Thereafter on 10/08/2022, the stay order was vacated. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in appeal.
4. Heard Sri.K.S. Bharathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the 7threspondent and Sri.A.J Varghese, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this court by Ext.P11 judgment had directed that when Ext.P7 revision is considered, all the contentions raised by the petitioners should be adverted to. However, the 2nd
5
respondent while disposing of Ext.P7 revision by Ext.P12 order has failed to advert to the contention raised by the petitioners that there has been noncompliance of Rule 5A of Chapter III KER. According to the petitioners, even going by the case of the 7 th respondent based on the partition deed dated 25/10/2002, there has not only been a change of management but a change of ownership also of the school. After the demise of Ibrahimkutty, going by the recitals in the deed styled as a partition deed, which according to the petitioners is actually a Will, the property devolved on his daughters including the 7threspondent and the heirs of Aisha Beevi, the 1stwife of Ibrahimkutty, who was the Manager and original owner of the school and the properties. Therefore, as change of ownership is also involved, the procedure contemplated under Rule 5A ought to have been first complied with and only then the provisions of Rule 2 ought to have been resorted to. However, in this case, the provisions of Rule 2 was directly invoked by the 7 threspondent and her associates and the 2ndrespondent without considering the strong objections raised by the petitioners, passed Ext.P12 order even without adverting to the said contention, which is in gross violation of the direction of this Court in Ext.P11 judgment. According to the petitioners, the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that the direction in Ext.P11 has not been complied with, before the interim order in the writ petition had been vacated.
6. Per contra the learned Senior Counsel for the 7threspondent submitted
6
that frivolous proceedings are being initiated repeatedly by the petitioners, who have absolutely no right in the property and hence have no right to get any relief(s).
7. It was in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the learned Single Judge had granted the interim order dated 26.07.2022. Larger Bench of this Court in K.S.Das v. State of Kerala, 1992(2)KLT 358 dealing with the scope of interference in appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, held that there is difference between the question whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench and as to the scope of interference. Normally discretionary orders are not interfered with unless the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or are perverse and they also cause serious prejudice to the parties in such a manner that it might be difficult to restore the status quo ante or grant compensation. The idea is to provide an internal remedy in such cases without compelling the parties to go all the way to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or increase the burden of that court unnecessarily.
8. The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P12 order. If we consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners before us, it would be as good as deciding the writ petition itself pending before the learned Single Judge, which course is totally uncalled for in this case. Hence, no interference is called for. The petitioners are certainly at liberty to request for an early disposal of the writ petition in the light of their argument that in the event of Ext.P12 being implemented,
7
their challenge against the same would become fait accompli. The writ appeal is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms/19.08