ABDURAHIMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this original petition the petitioner who is the manager of an Aided Lower Primary School challenges the orders of the 1st respondent-State issued under S. 14 of the Kerala Education Art 1958, for short the Act, taking over the management of the school. Ext. PI4 is the order of the 1st respondent taking over the management of the school and Exts. P-15 and P-16 are consequential orders issued by the 3rd respondent District Collector, malappuram.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, early in 1976 some muslims belonging to the orthodox section of the community at Wandoor made a demand for conducting religious instructions in the premises of the Madrassa alp. School under his management in the morning before school hours. The majority of the Muslims of the locality was opposed to the above move and the petitioner did not accede to the above demand. Those who made the demand attempted to conduct the Madrassa in the school premises by force. Though the local Police was approached, they did not do anything in the matter and hence the petitioner filed O. P. No. 519 of 1975 before this Court for Police protection. The petitioner also approached the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri by filing O. S. No. 13 of 1976 and he obtained an interim injunction against those who attempted to conduct religious instruction by force. O. P. No. 519 of 1975 was disposed of by this Court by Ext. P-23 judgment dated 3011976 with a direction to the Police to see that no breach of peace occurred in the locality on account of the controversy and that the orders of the Munsiff's Court, as long as the same are not set aside, be respected by the concerned parties. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal filed against Ext. P-11 order of the Munsiff's Court was later dismissed by the District Judge, Manjeri by Ext. P-22 judgment dated 23101976. On 151 76 when the Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff's Court came for inspection, a crowd collected at the school premises and hence a holiday for half a day had to be declared for the school. ACCORDING to the petitioner, on no other occasion, the functioning of the school was interrupted because of the dispute. Though the direction from the High Court was to give Police protection to the petitioner, no protection, as a matter of fact, was afforded by the Police. Not only that, on 6-2-1976 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perintalmanna initiated proceedings against the petitioner and others under S. 107 of the Criminal procedure Code. Thereupon, the petitioner and others moved Crl. R. P. No. 8 of 1976 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri who by Ext. P-24 order dated 4101976 quashed the above proceedings. In the above order the learned Sessions Judge observed that on no reliable material did the Police find that the petitioners were law breakers and in fact the truth was the other way about. The learned sessions Judge added that as between the wrong-doer and the wronged, the magistrate had preferred the former. But, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent-State issued a notification dated 12 61976 taking over the management of the school under S. 14 of the Act. ACCORDING to the petitioner, this was done at the instance of the rival group which is said to have had great influence with the 1st respondent. The petitioner questioned the above notification before this Court in O. P. No 3227 of 1976 and this Court quashed the above notification holding that the notification was in contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in S. 14 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P-12 notice dated 28 91976 directing the petitioner to show cause why the management of his school should not be taken over under S. 14 of the Act. Among other things, it was pointed out in Ext. P-12 notice that the school was unauthorisedly closed for two days, namely, 1511976 and 24 11976. The petitioner submitted Ext. P-13 explanation on 10101976 contending that there was no justifiable ground at all for taking action under S. 14 of the Act. But the 1st respondent issued Ext. P-14 order rejecting the petitioner's contentions and taking over management of the school for a period of two years under S. 14 (1) of the Act.

(3.) THE Government file in this case was made available to the court by the learned Government Pleader appearing in the case. It is clear from the file that the group which wanted to conduct the Madrassa classes in the school premises have asserted in their representations to the State that the Madrassa classes were being conducted in the school premises in the past and it was the petitioner-Manager and his Headmaster who prevented the same. But at the same time, the rival group in their representations to the State have pointed out that the Madrassa classes were being conducted in a separate building adjacent to the school on its southern side and the Madrassa Committee stopped the Madrassa classes there. It is also seen alleged in their representations that the Madrassa Committee was attempting to sell the above building. A report submitted by the Joint Director of Public Instruction who visited the school on 14 3 1976 is in the file. In the said report the Joint Director has said: "this is a matter which does not strictly come under the provisions of K E. R. THEre is a civil suit going on in the Court between the parties regarding the right of conducting Madrassa classes in the school premises. "