AVVU Vs. BAPPUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unable to share the view of the learned Judge on the basis of which the learned Judge sustained the decree for injunction and for accounting granted by the Trial Court and by the lower appellate court and modified the decree for removal of the 1st defendant granted by the appellate court, in effect, to a declaration directing that he is liable to be removed and pointing put the modus operandi for such removal. The aggrieved 1st defendant in the suit has appealed to us against the decision of the learned Judge.

(2.) The matter arises out of a suit claiming three reliefs viz. (1) to remove the 1st defendant from management of an aided Mopla Lower Primary School; (2) for an injunction against him from receiving the maintenance grant from the educational authorities; and thirdly for a rendition of accounts in respect of amount of grant so far received, The building which housed the elementary school belonged to one Avaru who assigned it under Ext. A1 dated 28-5-1959 to ten persons who are parties to the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants. One Mariakutty Umma was appointed the Manager of the School. By Ext. B5 dated 30-5-1959 the District Educational Officer recognised the Ist defendant as the Manager. On the same date as Ext. A 1 by Ex A 2 Mariakutty purported to transfer the right of management to the ten persons in whose favour Ext. A 1 document was executed. It was on these facts and circumstances that the suit was filed for the reliefs noticed. We have already referred in brief to the reliefs granted.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the statutory provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder, viz. S.7, S.9(3) and Chap.28 (dealing with maintenance grant) and Chapter III (dealing with approval of management). S.7(1) provides that any educational agency may appoint any person to be the manager of an aided school under this Act, subject to the approval of such officer as may be authorised by the Government. The explanation to sub clause (1) of S 7 enacts that all the existing managers of aided schools shall be deemed to have been appointed under the Act Sub clauses (2) to (9) provide the various duties, responsibilities and privileges of the Manager. The properties of the school are to be in his possession and control and it shall be his duty to maintain the records and accounts in such manner as may be prescribed; he shall be bound to afford all assistance and facilities for inspection of the school and its records and so on Under S.9(3) the Government may pay to the Manager a maintenance grant at such rates as may be prescribed Chap.28 deals with the disbursement of maintenance grant, and Chap.3 deals with the management of private schools. It is unnecessary to notice in detail the provisions of these 'Chapters: We have referred to the statutory provisions only to point out that when the legal title of management is provided for by the statutory provisions as based upon approval by the educational authorities, it appears difficult to envisage how a suit to remove a person duly approved by the educational authorities can lie without due cancellation or vacation of the approval. Nor are we able to understand how against such a duly approved Manager, the relief of injunction can lie. On these grounds it appears to us that the decree for removal of the 1st defendant and for injunction against him must be vacated.