IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1134 of 2007(T)
1. THE KALPETTA MUNICIPALITY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.A.AJITH PRASAD JAIN,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL
For Respondent :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P. No. 1134 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
This review petition is filed by the Kalpetta
Municipality against the judgment dated 17.08.2007 in the
writ petition which reads thus:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
1. Call for the records relating to Ext.P2 and
issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the 4th respondent to
comply Ext.P2 direction issued by the 3rd
respondent.
2. In view of the directions already issued by the competent
authorities, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to
hand over the key and records to the petitioner within a period
of one month from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
2. The contention now raised is that, at no point of
time the Municipality had any intention to part with
possession of the building and the intention was only to
handover the building to the petitioner for conducting
repairs of the building to be returned to the Municipality for
R.P. No. 1134 of 2007
-2-continuing to use the building as school. The Municipality
relies on Annexure 2 & 3 orders in this regard. According
to the Municipality, this is a tribal school and there is no
other building to house the school.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner also.
The Municipality did not file any counter affidavit in the
Writ petition. I doubt very much whether they even
appeared for the hearing of the Writ petition on 17.8.2007.
Admittedly by Ext.P2, the Deputy Director of Education has
directed the Principal of the school to vacate the building
and handover the key to the petitioner in the writ petition.
Admittedly, the Municipality has not challenged that order.
The learned judge only directed handing over the key as per
the directions issued by the Officers of the Government.
According to the counsel for the Municipality, the Deputy
Director of Education had no jurisdiction to issue such an
order in so far as the school belongs to the Municipality. I
do not find much substance in that contention. Admittedly,
the school was in existence years before the Municipality
R.P. No. 1134 of 2007
-3-was vested with the responsibility of running the school.
The school continued to belong to the Government under
the control of the educational authorities. Therefore, I do
not think that, the Deputy Director of Education is wholly
without jurisdiction to pass Ext.P2 order. Apart from that,
the judgment is dated 17.08.2007. The school has all along
been functioning elsewhere ever since and even now.
Therefore it is not as if because of want of availability of the
building, the school is not functioning. Further from
dilapidated nature of the building as is evident from the
photographs of the school produced by the petitioner, I am
certain that, that building is not fit to house the school and
would pose a threat to the safety of the children. In the
above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the review
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/