A CHELLIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are connected and hence they were heard together and common order is passed.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions relate to Kattathurai Aided High SChool, which is the petitioner in W.P.No. 11548 of 1994 in which respondents 1 and 2 are the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, respectively. With reference to this school, there was dispute regarding the management of the school among two sets of persons and the said dispute was sought to be resolved in a suit, which ended in judgment dated 18.8.1966 in S.A.No.1117 of 1962, on the file of this court. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows: "Both the plaintiff (Chelliah) and the appellant (Selvanayagam) are co-owners or co-managers each should act with the consent of the other. But when there is no-operation or co-ordination between the parties, best course would be to direct the plaintiff and the appellant to be in charge of collection of fees of the school in alternate years. In regard to the general management of the school, both of them will work together. The plaintiff will be incharge of the collection of fees, meeting of expenses, drawing of bills, etc. for the year ending 30th April, 1967. From 1st May, 1967 the appellant will attend this work. This arrangement of attending to this particular work will go on alternatively and in other respects both shall manage the school working together. 'Thus, the dispute was resolved by prescribing turn management in respect of collection of fees, meeting of expenses and drawing of bills and in other respects, both the rival parties were to manage the school, working together.

(3.) THE argument of learned counsel for 4th respondent is that the abovesaid withholding of the consent by Chelliah was only with a mala fide intention. In this connection he drew my attention, to the averment in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent, stating that Chelliah wanted to promote his son Rajan as Headmaster in the place of Thiru Russalin (former Headmaster) though he put up only 4 1/2 years of service, that respondents 4 and 5 wanted to promote 6th respondent as Headmistress, who is having 31 years of unblemished service and that since Chelliah could not promote his son as Headmasters he did not co-operate with respondents 4 and 5 for the smooth running of the 3rd respondent-school. THE said learned counsel also points out that there was no reply affidavit to the abovesaid counter of 4th respondent, repudiating the abovesaid allegations in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for Chelliah submits that though a reply affidavit has not been filed in W.P.No.16796 of 1993, the above referred to allegation which finds a place in the abovesaid counter of 4th respondent has been repu- diated in the counter-affidavit filed in W.M.P.No.14418 of 1994 in W.P.No.9485 of 1994, stating that the averment that Chelliah wanted one of his sons to be made as Headmaster of the school, is denied and the said averment has been made with oblique motive. Anyway, in the above circumstances, I do not think that the abovesaid contention of learned counsel for 4th respondent can be taken as having much weight.