T NARAYANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three applications filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, raise substantially the same point and ask for identical reliefs. In the view that I take about the maintainability of these Applications and the reliefs that would be granted in applications under Art.226, it is unnecessary to go into the several contentions raised by Mr. T. L. Govinda Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the interpretation to be placed on a surrender-deed executed between the Government the first respondent and the former management of the School namely, the Second respondent and evidenced by Ext. F in these proceedings. The applications prayed for a writ of mandamus or other proceedings against the first respondent, the State of Kerala and also as against the second respondent namely, Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., represented by its General Manager, W. M. Mayne, Munnar.

(2.) The question is whether the petitioner in each of these applications is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to get the reliefs prayed for.

(3.) It will be seen that prayers contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph No. 3 in all these applications are to the effect that the first respondent is to be called upon for producing the records in connection with this matter and for the second respondent being called upon by appropriate directions to produce before this Court the records relating to the surrender of the school and the second respondent Company being directed by a writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate directions or order to restore to the petitioners the benefits under Clause.3 (b)(i), 3 (b)(ii), 3 (b)(iii) and 3 (b)(iv) in the surrender-deed, Ext. F.