MISBAH SALAM Vs. PRESIDENT ERATTUPETTA AIDED SCHOOL TEACHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent refusing to grant sanction to the 1st respondent society for purchase of the petitioner's landed property. The reason stated in Ext.P4 for refusing sanction is that the value of the property has been shown to be very high compared to other similar properties in the area. The petitioner has produced Ext.P5 valuation report of an approved Valuer to support his case that the property was a very valuable one. It is also pointed out that it is located in the heart of Erattupetta town. Therefore, it is contended that there are no tenable reasons available for refusing the sanction that was sought for.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the society has already decided to purchase the property, grant of sanction was only a formality and therefore had to be granted as a matter of course. An unreported decision of this Court in W.P(c) No.3924 of 2012 is also relied upon to support the contention that sanction was only a formality.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am not satisfied that the matter requires any interference at the hands of this Court. The issue is essentially contractual in nature and no rights of the petitioner are sought to be violated. Nor is there any allegation of infraction of any provision of law. It is no doubt true that the petitioner may have a contractual right against the 1st respondent under the agreement of sale that has been entered into between them. Such rights are to be enforced through a competent civil court. As per Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent has refused to grant sanction on the basis of grounds that are valid and tenable. I am not in a position to enter any finding regarding the correctness of the factual points noted by the 2nd respondent and disputed by the petitioner. A comparison of the value of the two properties referred to or an assessment of the respective advantages of the said properties with reference to the location or physical condition is not possible within the limits of my summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the above reasons, I refrain from entering into any such exercise.