IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6121 of 2009(I)
1. THE MANAGER, BAKHITA BHAVAN, BAKHITA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :25/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6121 OF 2009
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging
Exhibit P20 order by which the application for upgradation of
petitioner’s school as High School was rejected by the
Government. Apart from raising various contentions on the
merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that on a short ground, the matter will have to be sent back to
the Government for reconsideration. It is submitted that the
matter was heard on 20.06.2008 by the then Under Secretary to
Government and thereafter, Exhibit P20 order dated 17.11.2008
was passed by relying upon the letter dated 05.11.2008 of the
Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram. This is
evident from paragraph 4 of the order.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
W.P.(C) No.6121/2009 2
3. Presently, Exhibit P20 order has been passed by the
Government after relying upon the contents of the said letter. It
is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
details of the same have not been communicated to the
petitioner and the petitioner did not get an opportunity to object
to the contents of the said letter. It is also pointed out that the
Government has relied upon G.O.(P) No.107/07/G.Edn dated
13.06.2007 while passing Exhibit P20 order, but the said
Government Order has been set aside by this Court in State of
Kerala vs. Manager, Nirmala Public School and another
(2008(2)KHC 836).
4. In the light of the above factual position, the matter will
have to be re-heard by the Government after affording an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit their objections regarding
the contents of the letter dated 05.11.2008 of the Director of
Public Instruction as well as other materials that is relied upon by
the Government in Exhibit P20.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P20 is
quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to take a
W.P.(C) No.6121/2009 3
fresh decision in the matter, after hearing the petitioner, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp