A A PADMANABHAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the Manager of P.M.L.P. School, Kiralur in Thrissur District. Petitioner gave Ext.P1 notice for closing down the school. It was accepted by the sixth respondent, Director of Public Instruction. There were reminders. Petitioner had also intimated the parents that the school will be closed down on 1.6.2011. Suffice it to say, the matter engaged the attention of this Court. There was also Writ Petition, Review Petition and this Court disposed of the matter by Ext.P11 Judgment. Petitioner has essentially approached this Court complaining of the actions by the fourth respondent. Fourth respondent is none other than the Headmistress-In-Charge of the school. Petitioner has filed various complaints which are included in the prayer which we have already adverted to. Petitioner relies on the Judgment of this Court in Parent Teacher Association v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 804) for the proposition that the closure of the school would take place automatically on the expiry of the notice period and that no permission is required. Petitioner also drew our attention to Ext.P15.

(3.) IT is common case that pursuant to Ext.P11 Judgment, a decision was taken by the Deputy Director of Education which is called in question in W.P.(C).No.13702/12 which is pending before this Court. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for us to go into the issues pertaining to the matter pending therein. But, at the same time, we notice that as far as the first prayer is concerned, it relates to the apprehension that there will be damage to property. Certainly, no one can have the right to cause damage to property. Therefore, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: