IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 233 of 2010()
1. V.AMINA, D/O.LATE T.V.AMAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.PAKKU, S/O.LATE T.V.AMAD,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
5. T.ABDULLA, S/O.T.V.AMAD,
6. V.AJMAL HAKKEM,
7. V.RUKHIYA, D/O.LATE T.V.AMAD,
8. V.ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.LATE T.V.AMAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.No.233/2010
------------------------------
Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The 5th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant.
She challenges an interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge on 2.2.2010. According to her, the interim relief prayed
for in the Writ Petition was to keep pending the consideration of
Ext.P5 revision till Ext.P11 bye-laws of the Corporate
Educational Agency are approved by the Director of Public
Instruction. But, the learned Judge passed an interim order
concerning the provisional arrangement for management of the
school. So, according to the appellant, the interim relief granted
has nothing to do with the interim relief sought by the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner.
2. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting party respondents and also the learned senior
Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent
WA No.233/2010
– 2 –
submitted that in fact he has moved an Interlocutory Application
seeking a direction to make interim arrangements for
management of the school. In fact, the order might have been
passed, taking note of that prayer in the I.A., it is submitted.
3. We notice that the said I.A. or the prayers therein are
not mentioned in the impugned interim order. But, the said
order has been passed on the interim relief sought in the Writ
Petition. The order has nothing to do with the interim relief
sought. Therefore, the interim order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, it is set aside. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner
will be free to move appropriate Interlocutory Applications,
seeking appropriate interim reliefs. The interference with the
interim order by us will not affect his rights in this regard. In
other words, we have not mentioned anything on the merits of
his case.
WA No.233/2010
– 3 –
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
nm.