PETER N. CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, the respective learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) INTERTWINED in the procedures and prescriptions under the Kerala Education Act and Kerala Education Rules regarding management of aided schools under approved scheme, is the fate of the 5th respondent school, which is run at Government expense, meaning thereby being an aided one, while two factions of the management appear to be unable to reconcile their differences. We notice this in the back drop of the fact that the subject matter of the writ petition before the learned single Judge was the approval granted by the statutory authority to the election of the 4th respondent as the manager of the school. While the learned senior counsel for the appellant says that the election was conducted when there were prohibitory orders in terms of interlocutory orders issued by this Court, we see that there was a dispute and a resultant writ petition arising from a civil suit, which ultimately terminated on default on 1 7.08.2010. That writ petition carried an interlocutory order dated 09.04.2010 staying the effect of the order that was impugned in that writ petition. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the said interdiction was against the conduct of election, which was authorised by the court below. The learned counsel for the private respondents say that the said order was about the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of conducting the election.