BY AD vs R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19292 OF 2024 PETITIONERS: 1 2 3 4 V. V SUDHAKARAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V. V DIVAKARAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V RATNAKARAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. BY ADVS. R.K.MURALEEDHARAN ATHIRA A.MENON HARISANKAR.K.V. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :4: RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 4 5 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEO MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KIZHISSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V KRISHNADAS KARTHIKA HOUSE, ARUN GARDENS KOLAZHY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680010. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).27184/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :5: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025 [W.P.(C) Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024] Vadakke Vakkathodi family is the Educational Agency running the Puliyacode A.U.P. School. The contesting petitioners and respondents in these two writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos.27184/2023 and 19292/2024, are all members of the said family.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 is the Manager of the School, claiming to enjoy the support and consent from the majority of the family members. The 5th respondent, another member of the family, filed a revision petition before the Government, contending that as per Ext.P1 Partition Deed, the eldest member of the family should be made W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :6: the Manager of the School. Thereupon, the Government passed Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023 directing the AEO to entrust the managership to the eldest member of the family. Ext.P4 has been passed without hearing all parties and without considering relevant facts, contends the petitioner. The AEO is taking hasty steps to oust the petitioner. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19292/2024 are also the members of the family. They are also challenging Ext.P4 Government Order dated

08.08.2023.

3. The petitioners state that by the order dated

08.08.2023, the Government has ordered that the Management of the School should be entrusted to the eldest member of the family. Neither the Government nor the educational authorities has decided as to who is the eldest member of the family. Unless and until the eldest member of the family is decided by the authorities, the 5th respondent cannot be appointed as the Manager of the School. Any attempt to appoint the 5th W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :7: respondent as the Manager of the School is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioners state that Ext.P1 Partition Deed does not provide that the eldest member should be the Manager of the School. The School belongs to the whole family and therefore, the Management is to be carried on by a member selected by the majority of the members of the family. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 has the support of the majority of the members of the family and therefore, she was appointed as the Manager. The 5th respondent does not enjoy majority support and therefore, he cannot be appointed as the Manager of the School.

5. The petitioners contended that by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the Government to hear all the affected parties before taking a decision. None of the affected parties were heard before passing Ext.P4 order. The direction in Ext.P4 order is contrary to the intention of the W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :8: members of the family as reflected in Ext.P1. The petitioners further submitted that by Ext.P4, practically the Government has reviewed its earlier order. In Anilkumar P. v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (3) KLT 650], this Court has held that the Government has no power to review an order passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is void ab initio.

6. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 filed counter affidavit and resisted the writ petitions. The 5th respondent submitted that specific provisions were made in Ext.P1 Partition Deed to the effect that the seniormost member of the family will be the Manager of the School. In the year 1992, a dispute arose between the family members and the Government took over the Management appointing Assistant Educational Officer, Arecode as Manager of the School. In the year 1999, the Management was returned to Smt. Karthiyayani Amma who was the seniormost member of the family. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :9:

7. One Smt. Komalavally Amma challenged the Government Order dated 03.06.1999 in O.P. No.4590/2000. The said original petition was dismissed. The petitioner is the cousin of Smt. Komalavally Amma. Daughter of the petitioner Smt. V.V. Sunitha filed O.P. No.4529/2000 claiming managership. The said original petition was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner along with her daughters filed O.S. No.241/2011 before the Sub Court, Manjeri seeking to frame a Scheme to govern the School. The Suit was dismissed on

11.02.2013. It was suppressing all these facts that a representation was preferred before the Government by the petitioner claiming that the petitioner has the support of majority of the members of the family.

8. The 5th respondent claimed that he is the seniormost member of the family. He filed a representation before the Government. The Government considered all aspects of the case and passed Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :10: In Ext.P4, the entire aspects of the case were taken into consideration. As the petitioner had obtained Ext.P2 order dated 20.09.2014 suppressing material facts, the 5th respondent was justified in bringing those facts to the notice of the Government. An order passed by the Government based on fraud and misrepresentation by one of the parties can always be reconsidered by the Government. That is what has been done by Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is not liable to be interfered with on all or any of the grounds.

9. The 4th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer filed counter affidavit. The 4th respondent submitted that the petitioner took charge as Manager on 21.09.2014 on the basis of Government Order dated 20.09.2014. The 5th respondent filed a revision petition before the Government. The Government heard the parties on 25.05.2023 and issued an order as per Ext.P4. The Government found that the Partition Deed has provision to appoint the eldest member of the joint W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :11: family as Manager of the School.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing the official respondents and the learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023.

11. Ext.P1 is the Partition Deed executed in the family on 02.08.1950. It is a registered Partition Deed. On

26.05.2012, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government of Kerala. The Government considered the matter and concluded that majority of the family members consented on record to appoint the petitioner as Manager. The Government felt that it is better to appoint a representative having the support of the majority of the family members as Manager. The Government allowed the revision petition and the AEO was directed to approve the petitioner as Manager of the School. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :12:

12. While the petitioner was continuing as Manager, the 5th respondent filed a petition dated 01.02.2023. This Court, in W.P.(C) No.10268/2023, directed the Government to consider the said petition.

13. The impugned Ext.P4 order would show that while passing the order, the Government has heard the petitioner, the 5th respondent and the educational authorities. The Government, in Ext.P4, came to a conclusion that the Partition Deed provides that the eldest member of the family should be appointed as Manager. There are no other Schemes applicable to the School. The Partition Deed is a valid document. Therefore, the eldest member of the family has to be appointed as Manager. The Government, therefore, directed the educational authorities to entrust managership to the eldest member of the family.

14. The writ petitioners would urge that Ext.P4 order amounts to review of an earlier order passed by the W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :13: Government by which the petitioner was appointed as Manager. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Anilkumar P. (supra) that the Government has no power to review an order passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER.

15. A perusal of Ext.P2 order dated 20.09.2014 would indicate that the said order has been passed without noting a number of earlier litigations in respect of the School Management undertaken before the civil courts as well as before this Court. Ext.P2 does not disclose that all members of the family were heard before passing the said order. Evidently, the order was passed without noting all relevant facts. Evidently, there was non-disclosure of material facts. Therefore, I find that the Government is justified in having a relook at the matter.

16. At the same time, I find that there is no clear mandate in Ext.P1 Partition Deed that the eldest member of the family should be appointed as Manager. But, at the same time, W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :14: the then existing eldest member was the one who was appointed as Manager. Ext.P1 Partition Deed does not either state that the Manager should be one supported by majority of family members. In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that the issue requires a deeper analysis and decision at the hands of the Government. Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023, is therefore set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 and 4 to take a decision afresh, giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. ams/aks Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :15: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27184/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1525/1950 DATED 02-08-1950 OF AREAKODE SUB REGISTRY TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE G.O(RT) 1ST NO.3693/14/G.EDN DATED 20-09-2014 RESPONDENT AS TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-03- 2023 IN W.P(C) NO.10268/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE G.O(RT) 1ST NO.4562/2023/G.EDN DATED 08-08-2023 RESPONDENT AS TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-05-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-05-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12- 04-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM DATED 24-07-2023 W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :16: Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT DATED 28-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11- 11-2023 Exhibit- P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8-11-2024 IN I.A.NO. 7/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 27184/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO G.O (MS) NO.125/99/G. EDN DATED 3/6/1999 EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/5/2000 IN O.P NO.4590/2000 EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/7/2003 IN O.P NO.25235/2002 EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/1/2006 IN W.A.NO.1340/2003 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 6/8/2007 IN W.P(C) NO.22891OF 2006 AND 22871 OF 2007 EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/2/2013 IN O.S.NO.241/2011 W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :17: EXHIBIT R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED 19/11/2023 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVING TO REMOVE THE PETITIONER AND APPOINT THE DEPONENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit-R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.06.2024 Exhibit-R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT FROM THE SAMANWAYA PORTAL W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :18: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19292/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1525 /1950 OF SRO AREEKODE DATED 02.08.1950 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 125/99/G.EDN DATED 03.06.1999 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 973/2004 DATED 10.03.2004 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 3693/2014/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2014 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 Exhibit-P7 Exhibit-P8 Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 01.02.2023 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 10268/2023 DATED 24.03.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B/2173/2011 DATED 19.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO. 4562/2023/GEDN DATED 08.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 30961/2023 DATED 09.04.2024 Exhibit-P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 IN WP(C) NO. 27184/2023

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19292 OF 2024 PETITIONERS: 1 2 3 4 V. V SUDHAKARAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V. V DIVAKARAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V RATNAKARAN AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKE VAKKATHODI HOUSE POST AKKAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. BY ADVS. R.K.MURALEEDHARAN ATHIRA A.MENON HARISANKAR.K.V. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :4: RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 4 5 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEO MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676505. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KIZHISSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641. V V KRISHNADAS KARTHIKA HOUSE, ARUN GARDENS KOLAZHY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680010. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).27184/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :5: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025 [W.P.(C) Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024] Vadakke Vakkathodi family is the Educational Agency running the Puliyacode A.U.P. School. The contesting petitioners and respondents in these two writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos.27184/2023 and 19292/2024, are all members of the said family.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 is the Manager of the School, claiming to enjoy the support and consent from the majority of the family members. The 5th respondent, another member of the family, filed a revision petition before the Government, contending that as per Ext.P1 Partition Deed, the eldest member of the family should be made W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :6: the Manager of the School. Thereupon, the Government passed Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023 directing the AEO to entrust the managership to the eldest member of the family. Ext.P4 has been passed without hearing all parties and without considering relevant facts, contends the petitioner. The AEO is taking hasty steps to oust the petitioner. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19292/2024 are also the members of the family. They are also challenging Ext.P4 Government Order dated

08.08.2023.

3. The petitioners state that by the order dated

08.08.2023, the Government has ordered that the Management of the School should be entrusted to the eldest member of the family. Neither the Government nor the educational authorities has decided as to who is the eldest member of the family. Unless and until the eldest member of the family is decided by the authorities, the 5th respondent cannot be appointed as the Manager of the School. Any attempt to appoint the 5th W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :7: respondent as the Manager of the School is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioners state that Ext.P1 Partition Deed does not provide that the eldest member should be the Manager of the School. The School belongs to the whole family and therefore, the Management is to be carried on by a member selected by the majority of the members of the family. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 has the support of the majority of the members of the family and therefore, she was appointed as the Manager. The 5th respondent does not enjoy majority support and therefore, he cannot be appointed as the Manager of the School.

5. The petitioners contended that by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the Government to hear all the affected parties before taking a decision. None of the affected parties were heard before passing Ext.P4 order. The direction in Ext.P4 order is contrary to the intention of the W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :8: members of the family as reflected in Ext.P1. The petitioners further submitted that by Ext.P4, practically the Government has reviewed its earlier order. In Anilkumar P. v. State of Kerala and others [2009 (3) KLT 650], this Court has held that the Government has no power to review an order passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is void ab initio.

6. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023 filed counter affidavit and resisted the writ petitions. The 5th respondent submitted that specific provisions were made in Ext.P1 Partition Deed to the effect that the seniormost member of the family will be the Manager of the School. In the year 1992, a dispute arose between the family members and the Government took over the Management appointing Assistant Educational Officer, Arecode as Manager of the School. In the year 1999, the Management was returned to Smt. Karthiyayani Amma who was the seniormost member of the family. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :9:

7. One Smt. Komalavally Amma challenged the Government Order dated 03.06.1999 in O.P. No.4590/2000. The said original petition was dismissed. The petitioner is the cousin of Smt. Komalavally Amma. Daughter of the petitioner Smt. V.V. Sunitha filed O.P. No.4529/2000 claiming managership. The said original petition was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner along with her daughters filed O.S. No.241/2011 before the Sub Court, Manjeri seeking to frame a Scheme to govern the School. The Suit was dismissed on

11.02.2013. It was suppressing all these facts that a representation was preferred before the Government by the petitioner claiming that the petitioner has the support of majority of the members of the family.

8. The 5th respondent claimed that he is the seniormost member of the family. He filed a representation before the Government. The Government considered all aspects of the case and passed Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :10: In Ext.P4, the entire aspects of the case were taken into consideration. As the petitioner had obtained Ext.P2 order dated 20.09.2014 suppressing material facts, the 5th respondent was justified in bringing those facts to the notice of the Government. An order passed by the Government based on fraud and misrepresentation by one of the parties can always be reconsidered by the Government. That is what has been done by Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is not liable to be interfered with on all or any of the grounds.

9. The 4th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer filed counter affidavit. The 4th respondent submitted that the petitioner took charge as Manager on 21.09.2014 on the basis of Government Order dated 20.09.2014. The 5th respondent filed a revision petition before the Government. The Government heard the parties on 25.05.2023 and issued an order as per Ext.P4. The Government found that the Partition Deed has provision to appoint the eldest member of the joint W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :11: family as Manager of the School.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing the official respondents and the learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.27184/2023.

11. Ext.P1 is the Partition Deed executed in the family on 02.08.1950. It is a registered Partition Deed. On

26.05.2012, the writ petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government of Kerala. The Government considered the matter and concluded that majority of the family members consented on record to appoint the petitioner as Manager. The Government felt that it is better to appoint a representative having the support of the majority of the family members as Manager. The Government allowed the revision petition and the AEO was directed to approve the petitioner as Manager of the School. W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :12:

12. While the petitioner was continuing as Manager, the 5th respondent filed a petition dated 01.02.2023. This Court, in W.P.(C) No.10268/2023, directed the Government to consider the said petition.

13. The impugned Ext.P4 order would show that while passing the order, the Government has heard the petitioner, the 5th respondent and the educational authorities. The Government, in Ext.P4, came to a conclusion that the Partition Deed provides that the eldest member of the family should be appointed as Manager. There are no other Schemes applicable to the School. The Partition Deed is a valid document. Therefore, the eldest member of the family has to be appointed as Manager. The Government, therefore, directed the educational authorities to entrust managership to the eldest member of the family.

14. The writ petitioners would urge that Ext.P4 order amounts to review of an earlier order passed by the W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :13: Government by which the petitioner was appointed as Manager. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Anilkumar P. (supra) that the Government has no power to review an order passed under Rule 92 Chapter XIVA KER.

15. A perusal of Ext.P2 order dated 20.09.2014 would indicate that the said order has been passed without noting a number of earlier litigations in respect of the School Management undertaken before the civil courts as well as before this Court. Ext.P2 does not disclose that all members of the family were heard before passing the said order. Evidently, the order was passed without noting all relevant facts. Evidently, there was non-disclosure of material facts. Therefore, I find that the Government is justified in having a relook at the matter.

16. At the same time, I find that there is no clear mandate in Ext.P1 Partition Deed that the eldest member of the family should be appointed as Manager. But, at the same time, W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :14: the then existing eldest member was the one who was appointed as Manager. Ext.P1 Partition Deed does not either state that the Manager should be one supported by majority of family members. In the afore circumstances, I am of the view that the issue requires a deeper analysis and decision at the hands of the Government. Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2023, is therefore set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 3 and 4 to take a decision afresh, giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. ams/aks Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :15: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27184/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1525/1950 DATED 02-08-1950 OF AREAKODE SUB REGISTRY TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE G.O(RT) 1ST NO.3693/14/G.EDN DATED 20-09-2014 RESPONDENT AS TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-03- 2023 IN W.P(C) NO.10268/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE G.O(RT) 1ST NO.4562/2023/G.EDN DATED 08-08-2023 RESPONDENT AS TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22-05-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-05-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12- 04-2023 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM DATED 24-07-2023 W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :16: Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT DATED 28-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11- 11-2023 Exhibit- P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8-11-2024 IN I.A.NO. 7/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 27184/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO G.O (MS) NO.125/99/G. EDN DATED 3/6/1999 EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/5/2000 IN O.P NO.4590/2000 EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/7/2003 IN O.P NO.25235/2002 EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/1/2006 IN W.A.NO.1340/2003 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 6/8/2007 IN W.P(C) NO.22891OF 2006 AND 22871 OF 2007 EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/2/2013 IN O.S.NO.241/2011 W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :17: EXHIBIT R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED 19/11/2023 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVING TO REMOVE THE PETITIONER AND APPOINT THE DEPONENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit-R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.06.2024 Exhibit-R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT FROM THE SAMANWAYA PORTAL W.P.(C)Nos.27184 of 2023 & 19292 of 2024 :18: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19292/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1525 /1950 OF SRO AREEKODE DATED 02.08.1950 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. 125/99/G.EDN DATED 03.06.1999 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SRO NO. 973/2004 DATED 10.03.2004 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 3693/2014/G.EDN DATED 20.09.2014 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 Exhibit-P7 Exhibit-P8 Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 01.02.2023 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 10268/2023 DATED 24.03.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B/2173/2011 DATED 19.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS) NO. 4562/2023/GEDN DATED 08.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 30961/2023 DATED 09.04.2024 Exhibit-P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 IN WP(C) NO. 27184/2023