Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
14. 08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1178 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014 Kulandai Velu : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai Educational District, Aruppukottai. 4.The District Registrar (Trust), Virudhunagar District. 5.Sathiriya Nadarkal Uravin Murai, Rep. by its President, Kallurani, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 6.K.Pula Mada Nadar, Ambalakarar of the Kallurani Sathiriya Nadarkal Uravin Murai Trust, Kallurani, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 7.Kanaga Raj, The Secretary, SBK Higher Secondary School, Kallurani, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 8.SBK Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Head Master, Kallurani, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings K.K.vz;-1443/M3/2013 dated 21.05.2013 and quash the same as illegal and direct the third respondent to take appropriate action insofar as management of the eight respondent School. !For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, For Mr.L.Plato Aristatil ^For Respondents 1to4 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader For Respondents 5to8 : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu :ORDER
The difficulty faced by the petitioner to obtain an interim order from the Civil Court in O.S.No.86 of 2013 appears to have made him to file this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 21 May, 2013, approving the School Committee, subject to certain conditions. BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioner is stated to be a member of Sathiriya Nadarkal Uravin Murai Trust functioning at Kallurani Village, Aruppukottai, in the district of Virudhunagar. The Trust established an Educational Institution in the name and style of 'SBK Higher Secondary School'. The sixth respondent floated a paper publication on 04 January, 2012 declaring that he is convening the general body meeting to elect the Executive Committee of the Trust and without conducting any such meeting, he declared the constitution of new Executive Committee. The petitioner immediately filed a suit in O.S.No.46 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, to declare the said action as illegal. The sixth respondent, once again, issued a paper publication on 31 January, 2013 that the election of the Office Bearers of the Trust would be held on 23 February, 2013. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no such meeting or election of Office Bearers on 23 February, 2013 as claimed by the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent claimed that Thiru.Muniyasamy Nadar was elected as a President of the Trust. The petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, praying for a decree of declaration that the election held on 23 February, 2013, is a nullity, to restrain the educational authorities from granting approval of School Committee and to restrain the District Registrar from entertaining form-VII and similar other reliefs. While so, the third respondent passed an order dated 21 May, 2013, approving the School Committee. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
3. The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit contending that the School Committee was duly elected on 23 February, 2013. Thiru.Muniyasamy Nadar was elected as President and Thiru.L.A.Kanagaraj as Secretary. The proposal submitted by the School Committee was scrutinized by him and subject to production of form-VII and pending civil suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013, the Committee was approved.
4. The District Registrar, Virudhunagar District, in his counter- affidavit, contended that form-VII submitted by the fifth respondent is kept pending in his office on account of the pendency of this Writ Petition and the civil suits. According to the District Registrar, the notice of change of Committee in form-VII was given on 22 March, 2013 by the fifth respondent. There is no rival claim or submission of another form-VII till date.
5. The fifth respondent, in his capacity as the President of the Trust, filed a counter-affidavit. According to the fifth respondent, the petitioner was part of the executive body that managed the institution till the year 2011. The petitioner tried his level best to stop the election process. The High Court, by order dated 02 January, 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.2944 of 2012, directed the Trust to conduct the election. Accordingly, election was conducted. The fifth respondent secured 140 votes as against 5 votes secured by Thiru.Karunakaran, who is none other than the candidate sponsored by the petitioner. Immediately, after the election, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013. The fifth respondent, who was nominated as the School Committee, submitted form-VII before the District Registrar and an application before the District Educational Officer for approval of School Committee. It is the contention of the fifth respondent that in view of the civil suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013, it is not open to the petitioner to prosecute the present Writ Petition. SUBMISSIONS:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even before the approval of form-VII by the District Registrar, the third respondent hastily approved the School Committee. According to the learned counsel, registration of form-VII is a mandatory requirement for considering the application for approval of School Committee. The third respondent, without conducting enquiry with regard to the election of the fifth respondent and the School Committee, approved the Committee. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench in Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi & 7 others [2008 Writ L.R. 575]., contended that the Division Bench has made it clear that the registration of form-VII was a mandatory requirement for considering the application for approval of School Committee by the Educational Authorities.
7. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the group led by the petitioner has been in management of the institution for years together. They, having failed to muster sufficient support, made series of attempts to stall the election process. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.Nos.46 of 2012 and 86 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai. The petitioner failed to obtain interim orders from the Civil Court and that made him to file this Writ Petition. According to the learned counsel, the fifth respondent was duly elected by the members of Trust. The fifth respondent has already submitted form-VII before the District Registrar and as such, the third respondent was fully justified in approving the School Committee.
8. I have also heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Department of Education and the District Registrar. DISCUSSION:
9. The petitioner challenges the approval given by the third respondent primarily on the ground that form-VII submitted by the fifth respondent is yet to be recognized by the District Registrar.
10. The order passed by the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai, dated 21 May, 2013 very clearly shows that the approval was granted subject to production of form-VII duly recognized by the District Registrar and pending the suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013.
11. The eighth respondent is an educational institution. The School should have a Committee to administer its affairs. The fifth respondent produced a copy of form-VII before the third respondent. Form-VII contains the names of the elected members of the Trust. The third respondent, having found that there was no rival claim, approved the School Committee. The counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent also very clearly shows that the fifth respondent has already filed form-VII and nobody much less the petitioner has made any rival claim. The District Registrar kept form-VII pending on account of the pendency of this Writ Petition and the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.86 of 2013.
12. The petitioner has already filed a comprehensive suit before the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai in O.S.No.86 of 2013, challenging the decision taken in the meeting and the election of the fifth respondent. The petitioner in the said suit wanted the District Educational Officer not to approve the Committee. Similarly, he wanted an injunction restraining the District Registrar from entertaining form-VII. The petitioner failed to obtain any kind of interim orders from the Civil Court. The District Educational Officer passed the impugned order during the currency of the civil suit. Nothing prevented the petitioner from amending the prayer for the purpose of setting aside the impugned order, which was passed during the currency of the civil suit. The petitioner appears to be interested in conducting parallel proceedings. It is not possible for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider disputed facts and to arrive at a finding as to whether the election conducted on 23 February, 2013 was a valid election and whether the fifth respondent was duly and properly elected as the President.
13. The petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench in Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi & 7 others [2008 Writ L.R. 575].. The said case was decided on a totally different set of facts. The Division Bench found that the District Elementary Educational Officer, while approving the School Committee, failed to add a rider that the order of approval would be subject to change, in case it was found to be incorrect. The Division Bench in paragraph 22 of the judgment made the position very clear: ".22. In our considered view, ultimately the Appellants challenge the election of Daniel Group as Office Bearers in the election conducted by the District Registrar. The Appellants, aggrieved by the election, cannot challenge the acceptance of Form No.VII by the District Registrar, as a short-cut to invalidate the election. As held by the Full Bench in C.M.S. Evangelical Case (cited supra), the validity of election could very well be decided only by the competent civil court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. If at all the Appellants are aggrieved by the election of officer bearers of 1st Respondent Church Society, the same can be challenged only before the Civil Court. Form No.VII is only consequential to the election and constitution of the Managing Committee and the same cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition.".
14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the District Educational Officer very clearly stated that the approval of Committee is subject to production of form-VII and the judgment and decree to be passed in O.S.No.86 of 2013.
15. The approval of School Committee was given by the third respondent on the basis of a decision taken by the members of the Trust. The validity of the election is under challenge before the Civil Court at the instance of the petitioner. The impugned proceedings is, therefore, only a consequential proceedings. The petitioner should obtain a declaration from the Civil Court with regard to the validity of the election held on 23 February, 2013. It would not be possible for the District Educational Officer to decide the validity of election, while considering the application submitted by the fifth respondent for approval of School Committee. The petitioner has no case that he raised a dispute with regard to the approval of Committee and a request was made to the District Educational Officer not to approve the Committee. The third respondent was, therefore, perfectly justified in approving the School Committee. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioner. DISPOSITION:
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition would not stand in the way of the petitioner prosecuting the suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 before the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai.
17. The learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai, is directed to decide the civil suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 independently on merits and as per law, without in anyway being influenced by the subsequent events and more particularly, the approval of School Committee by the third respondent. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. To 1.The Joint Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 3.The District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai Educational District, Aruppukottai. 4.The District Registrar (Trust), Virudhunagar District.