G SOMANATHA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doubting the correctness of the decision reported in Mohammed Kutty v. State of Kerala 2002 (2) KLT 300 this matter was referred to Division Bench by the learned Single judge (Justice Mr.K.M.Joseph), The question is whether legal representatives of 'an individual educational agency' of an aided private school can be treated as an 'individual educational agency' or a 'corporate educational agency'. According to the dictum in Mohammed Kutty's case when a person who is entitled to run a School in his own right dies and his legal representatives continue in management, it will not become a 'corporate educational agency' but it will continue as an 'individual Educational Agency'. In Mohammed Kutty's case it was observed as follows:

(2.) The management of the School is vested with the 'approved' Manager as per rules. After the death of an individual who had the right to conduct the School in his own capacity, his rights are inherited by one or more of his legal representatives. If it is not devolved on a particular individual by way of testamentary deposition or by way of personal law and is devolved on more than one person, it will become a 'corporate educational agency'. Considering the provisions mentioned in Chapter III Rule 2 of the KER, view of the learned Single Judge in Mnhamed Kutty's case that even after the death of an individual educational agency, when right of management devolves on more than one legal representatives, it will continue as an individual educational agency as not contemplated under the Educational Rules. The word used in Rule I while differentiating a joint family is the 'legal representative' and not 'legal representatives', making it clear that if there are more than one legal representatives, it will not be an individual educational agency. All educational agencies other than 'individual educational agency' are termed as a 'corporate educational agency'. We agree with the learned Single Judge who referred the matter to Division Bench.

(3.) Now we will refer to the facts of this case. One Gopalakrishna Pillai who was the Manager and owner of the School died in 1985 and it is the contention of the petitioner that the said Gopalakrishna Pillai executed a will. On the basis of the will the eldest male member of the family will be the Manager. There were five sons and two daughters to Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai. On the death of Sri.Gopalakrishna Pillai, Balakrishna Pillai eldest male member of the family was appointed as Manager. According to the petitioner it was on the strength of the will purportedly acknowledged by the children of Gopalakrishna Pillai. A civil suit for partition was filed. Validity of the will was attacked in the suit. The above suit was dismissed. But in first appeal as per Ext. R4 (a) judgment of a Single Judge of this Court the alleged Will is found to be not valid and management of the School is directed to be on the basis of the scheme to be framed in the final decree proceedings. To avoid vacuum, Balakrishna Pillai was allowed to continue as Manager till scheme is framed. The learned Judge observed as follows: