- (1.)Both these writ petitions concern the affairs of a High School, viz. Ganapathy Vilasam High School at Koovappady. WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is filed by one of the owners and Managing Committee members of the school, aggrieved by Ext. P5 order passed by the Government in a review petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 therein. The fifth respondent, viz. the Dharma Paripalana Sabha has obtained as per two sale deeds, the rights of respondents 3 and 4 therein, in regard to the properties and right of management of the school. WP (C) No. 19196/2010 is filed by the Sabha and respondents 3 and 4 in the other writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction, which is confirmed by the Government refusing permission for the transfer.
(2.)The case of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 16843/2010 is that the school was established in the year 1938 by late Shri. A. S. Narayana Iyer, with the intention of promoting education among the Tamil Brahmin community which is a religious and linguistic minority. Ext. P1 is the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, approving the constitution of the school. The Educational Agency is known as 'Ganapathy Vilasam High School, Koovappady.' The petitioner points out that respondents 3 and 4, without waiting for prior sanction of the Director of Public Instruction as provided under S.6 of the Kerala Education Act and R.5 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, executed two sale deeds as per Nos. 2027/2005 and 2028/2005 of the Sub Registry Office, Perumbavoor, in favour of the fifth respondent Sabha. Thereafter, they approached the Director of Public Instruction for sanction. This was rejected by the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P2 order. Ext. P3 is the judgment in OS No. 120/2005 filed by the petitioner which was a suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction for declaring that the sale deeds executed by respondents 3 and 4 are not binding on the petitioner and seeking for a prohibitory injunction against respondents 3 to 5. The suit was decreed as per Ext. P3 judgment, against which AS No. 72/2009 is pending before the Sub Court, Perumbavoor.
(3.)The revision petition filed by respondents 3 and 4 against the order Ext. P2, also stands rejected by Ext. P4 order. Respondents 3 and 4 filed a review petition before the Government which was allowed as per Ext. P5 order, even without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity for hearing. It is contended that the review petition itself is not maintainable, as R.93 of Chap.14 - A KER permits review of only original orders. It is also pointed out that in the light of the binding judgment and decree of the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, the Government was not correct in passing Ext. P5 order. The matter is now pending before the Civil Court in the form of an appeal against Ext. P3 judgment.