IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25315 of 2010(S)
1. K.M.JOSEPH,S/O.MATHAI,AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THRISSUR
4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,
5. VIMALA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
6. VIMALA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/08/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 25315 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider Ext.P1
and take such action so as to ensure basic facilities for toilets,
urinals with water facilities and computer lab facilities are
provided 5th respondent’s school.”
2. The writ petition is purportedly filed in public interest.
The substance of the grievance in the writ petition is that the
5th respondent School run by the 6th respondent Society is not
providing the necessary amenities such as toilet etc. to the
students. In our view, the writ petition is required to be
dismissed for more than one reason. The petitioner herein, on
his own admission, is a former Managing Director of the 6th
respondent Society. It is not very clear from the writ petition
as to when he ceased to hold such responsibility. It is the 6th
respondent Society which has the managerial control over the
affairs of the 5th respondent School. In the background of the
W.P.(C) No.25315 of 2010
-:2:-
abovementioned facts, if really the 5th respondent is not providing
necessary facilities required for the students, the petitioner
himself must take up at least a part of the blame, in view of the
fact that he himself was in the Board of management for some
time earlier. Without explaining the role played by him when he
was in the management, now he claims that there is a question
of public interest which is required to be examined by this Court.
We are of the opinion that the facts stated above are sufficient to
demonstrate that the writ petition though purportedly filed in
public interest, we suspect the bonafides of the petitioner. We
therefore do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition.
The same is dismissed at the admission stage.
We are also conscious of the fact that though the
petitioner’s credentials to raise the issue are doubtful, the issue
itself requires an examination. If there is any truth on the
allegations made in the writ petition. The resultant situation
would be lack of appropriate facilities to the children studying in
the 5th respondent School. However, it is brought to our notice
that there is another writ petition, W.P.(C) No.35485 of 2008,
W.P.(C) No.25315 of 2010
-:3:-
where the issue of the provisions of various amenities including
toilets on various schools in the State of Kerala is pending
consideration before this Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion
that the dismissal of the instant writ petition would not in any
manner prejudicially affect the larger public interest.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ttb