S.JAYAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein who is the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School, is approaching this court seeking police protection to exercise his powers and duties as Manager of the school, from not being obstructed by the respondents 5 to 10 or their men and agents. Contentions in brief is that, the school in question was established in the year 1975 and is owned by a religious trust (a family private trust) named 'Elampalloor Devaswom Trust', which has got a 'kalari' and a Temple under its ownership, apart from the school. With respect to administration of the trust there were disputes pending before civil courts, since long back. It is pointed out that, in OS No.280/1957 of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam a decree was passed settling a scheme for administration of the trust. It is only after the said decree the school in question was started. There is Rules (Byelaws) formulated for administration of the school, which stands approved by the educational authorities. Subsequently, another suit was filed before the Sub Court, Kollam as OS No.273/2011 seeking modification of the scheme, which is pending disposal. Even the question of maintainability of that suit was fought out upto the hon'ble Supreme Court, but such challenges ultimately failed. It is mentioned that the Sub Court had conducted election to the Managing Committee of the trust by appointing an Advocate Commissioner in OS No.280/1957. As evident from Ext.P1 report of the Advocate Commissioner, a new Managing Committee was elected on 02 -11 -2013. The petitioner herein is one among the members elected accordingly. It is averred that one Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai was elected as Convenor of the trust and as a consequence he became Manager of the school by virtue of provisions contained in the Byelaws governing administration of the school. Allegations arose that there were misappropriation of amounts by Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai and on that basis he resigned from the Convenorship of the trust. The petitioner herein was unanimously elected to that post. It is further mentioned that, inorder to recover the amounts misappropriated by Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai, the trust has already instituted a suit as OS No.931/2015 before the Munsiff Court. On resignation of Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai and on election of the petitioner as Convenor of the trust, the petitioner filed an application before the educational authority, the District Educational Officer (DEO), Kollam for recognizing him as the Manager of the school. As evidenced from Ext.P2, Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai raised objections against approving the petitioner as Manager. Evidently, the DEO conducted an adjudication by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. As held in Ext.P2, the DEO became satisfied about resignation of Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai and consequently approved the Managership of the petitioner. Hence it is evident that the petitioner continues as Manager on the strength of the approval granted by the educational authority concerned.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that, a general body meeting of the trust was convened on 04 -10 -2015 to transact regular matters of the trust. It is mentioned that, there occurred some unruly actions by a diffident group headed by Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai, in which the Minutes Book of the trust was snatched away. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Kollam as OS No.971/2015 against Sri. C.T. Sukumara Pillai and certain others, seeking relief to the extent of directing the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit to return back the Minutes Book of the trust and also seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from obstructing the petitioner from discharging his duties as the Convenor of the trust. It is stated in this writ petition that the diffident group made an endorsement in the Minutes Book to the extent of electing a new Managing Committee in the general body meeting convened on 04 -10 -2015. Averments are to the effect that, there arose a series of litigations thereafter with respect to various affairs touching management of the trust. It is stated that various writ petitions were filed before this court also. Subsequently, the interim injunction application filed as OS No.971/2015 was dismissed by the Munsiff Court, Kollam, against which a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the petitioner herein which is pending before the District Court, Kollam. Claim of the petitioner is that he is acting as Manager of the school by virtue of approval granted by the educational authority concerned under Ext.P2. But it is alleged that the 5th respondent and his supporters are creating physical obstructions in the school by tresspassing into the premises and by threating the Headmaster and other staff of the school. Despite Exts.P3 & P4 complaints submitted to respondents 3 & 4 no effective police protection is granted, is the grievance.

(3.) The petitioner has brought out some additional facts through the Reply Affidavit filed. It is pointed out that, apart from OS No.971/2015, the petitioner had filed another suit as OS No.251/2016 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kollam, which according to him is a comprehensive suit seeking declaratory reliefs. It is pointed out that the said court had passed Ext.P5 interim injunction order, in IA No.1461/2016, after hearing both sides and after elaborate consideration of all the contentions. The respondents herein and others were restrained by way of a temporary injunction from causing any sort of obstruction to the smooth administration and management of the trust by the managing committee headed by the petitioner herein, till the disposal of the suit. Contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the educational authority and by virtue of Ext.P5 interim order of injunction, he is entitled to continue as Manager of the school and to manage all the affairs of the school, including admissions of students. But the respondents are creating physical obstruction without any authority of law, which need to be averted. It is contended that respondents 2 to 4 are duty bound to give adequate and meaningful protection, which they failed to do.