Common Judgment:

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. W.A.No.313 of 2026 is filed by the 8th respondent in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025, W.A.No.318 of 2026 is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, W.A.No.328 of 2026 is filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025 and W.A.No.330 of 2026 is filed by respondents 4 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. For convenience of reference, parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the impugned judgment, unless otherwise stated.

W.A.Nos.318 and 328 of 2026

2. The pleadings in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, from which the above writ appeals arose, in brief, are as follows:

                  2.1. The Lazar Nadar Education and Research Foundation was constituted through a Trust Deed by the petitioner, his father Daivathanam, mother Gomathy, his wife Pratheeja, his brother Sunil and also the spouses of his brothers, Sherly and Nisha. The Trust has established and administered various educational institutions. The petitioner has spent more than Rs.60/- Lakhs and also gave two acres of land for the purpose of establishing the school. Pursuant to the agreements dated 30.10.2006 and 01.11.2006 entered into between the members of the Trust, an application was submitted before the educational authorities for approving the petitioner as the Manager of the school, and by Ext.P1 order dated 09.02.2007, the District Educational Officer approved the said appointment.

                  2.2. Some members of the Trust, without the junction of the petitioner and other executants of the Trust deed, executed an amended Trust deed on 19.09.2008, and on the basis of the same, the father of the petitioner, Daivathanam, was appointed as the Manager. The said appointment was later approved vide order dated 29.12.2009. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2535 of 2010. Meanwhile, the amendment to the bye-laws was challenged by filing O.S.No.1095 of 2008 before the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Neyyattinkara. By Ext.P2 judgment dated 17.02.2010, the learned Munsiff set aside the amended bye-laws and restrained the other members of the Trust from obstructing and interfering with the peaceful management of the Trust property by the petitioner. In view of Ext.P2 judgment, W.P.(C) No.2535 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 07.12.2010, setting aside the appointment of his father as the Manager.

                  2.3. On 23.07.2021, three members of the Trust issued a notice to convene the annual general body meeting of the Trust. This notice was challenged by the petitioner, and by Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.580 of 2021, the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, restrained the those members from convening the meeting of the Trust and also from issuing further notices for convening the meetings other than issuing notice to the petitioner seeking the convening of the meeting.

                  2.4. In the meantime, one of the members of the Trust, namely Sunil, filed an application seeking a direction to the petitioner to issue notice to all members of the Board of Trustees to convene a meeting on the agenda detailed in the application or permit the Chairman to conduct a meeting. The Munsiff Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to convene a meeting, issuing notice to the members. It was further held by the Munsiff Court that on failure of the same, the defendants therein can apply to the Court for the issuance of notice and fixation of the date of the meeting. The said order of the Munsiff Court was challenged before this Court in O.P.(C)No.756 of 2022, and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 09.04.2024, this Court remitted the matter to the Munsiff Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Neyyattinkara, passed Ext.P6 order dated 16.11.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in that suit, directing the petitioner to issue notice for convening a meeting within four months in view of the provisions of the Trust Deed. The Munsiff Court further directed the petitioner to prepare a draft agenda containing essential items that require approval and ratification by the Board of Trustees and forward the same to the Trust members. It was also clarified that agendas like inclusion of new members and removal of the Manager would be subject to the provisions of the Trust deed. It was also clarified that in case of failure of the petitioner to issue notice, the aggrieved parties can approach the Munsiff Court for issuance of notice and fixation of the date of the meeting.

                  2.5. In view of Ext. P6 order of the Munsiff Court, the petitioner issued Ext.P7 notice dated 03.03.2025 to convene a meeting on 09.03.2025. However, some of the members of the Trust gave Ext.P8 reply dated 06.03.2025 stating that they have some inconvenience on 09.03.2025 and that Ext.P7 notice was issued without consulting them. Thereafter, the other members of the Trust issued Ext.P9 notice dated 13.03.2025 to convene the meeting on 15.03.2025. Since Ext.P9 notice is ab initio void as it was contrary to Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner sent a reply dated 14.03.2025 specifically stating the same. Thereafter, the petitioner issued Ext.P10 notice dated 15.03.2025 along with the draft agenda to convene a meeting on 29.03.2025. However, the other members convened a meeting on 15.03.2025 and took a decision to appoint the 3rd respondent as the Manager of the school. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.379 of 2025 before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, wherein Ext.P11 order of injunction dated 02.04.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 was passed restraining the defendants therein from taking a consequent action based on the meeting held on 15.03.2025 and restraining the 3rd respondent from acting as the Manager of the educational institutions. The said interim order was subsequently extended, and by Ext.P12 order dated 03.06.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, the Munsiff Court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo until further orders.

                  2.6. Based on the decision taken on 15.03.2025, an application was submitted before the District Educational Officer for change in management, and on coming to know about this, the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 letter dated 08.04.2025 to the District Educational Officer informing about the order of injunction passed by the Munsiff Court. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P14 letter dated 15.05.2025 stating that the change in Managership would be considered consequent to the orders of the Civil Court. By Ext.P15 communication dated 15.05.2025, the District Educational Officer denied access to the ‘Samanwaya’ Portal to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 letter dated 16.05.2025 to the District Educational Officer, seeking access to the Samanwaya portal. But the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P17 order dated 09.06.2025 approving the 3rd respondent as the Manager with effect from 15.03.2025 and holding that the Civil Court does not have the power to entertain the disputes between management and educational agency. In furtherance of Ext.P17 order, the District Educational Officer issued Ext.P18 communication dated 09.06.2025 to the petitioner stating that, in view of Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act, Ext.P11 order of injunction of the Civil Court has no validity. Contending that Exts.P17 and P18 orders are issued by the District Educational Officer by misinterpreting the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and in total contravention of its power and authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exts.P15, P17, and P18, and set aside the same.

                  ii. Issue a writ declaring that Exts.P17 and P18 are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules.

                  iii. Issue a writ declaring that the petitioner has the right to continue as the Manager of the school in view of the various orders passed by the civil court.

                  iv. Issue a writ declaring that the approval of the third respondent as Manager by the second respondent is contrary to law.

                  v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to grant the access of the Samawaya portal to the petitioner”.

                  2.7. After the filing of the writ petition, along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, the petitioner has produced Ext.P19 interim order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, in O.S.No.379 of 2025.

                  2.8. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 18.06.2025, producing therewith Exts.R3(a) to R3(d) documents. Similarly, the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated 19.06.2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition. To the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 30.06.2025, producing therewith Ext.P20 document. Though the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25419 of 2025 was not originally a party in W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025, she self- impleaded in that writ petition by filing I.A.No.2 of 2025. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2025, the 3rd respondent produced Ext.R3(e) document. Thereafter, along with I.A.No.4 of 2025, the petitioner has produced Exts.P21 and P22 documents. Subsequently, the additional 5th respondent was self-impleaded in the writ petition, as per the order in I.A.No.5 of 2025. After the impleadment, the additional  5th  respondent  filed  a  counter  affidavit  dated 22.09.2025, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.6 of 2025, the 3rd respondent produced Ext.R3(f) document.

W.A Nos.313 and 330 of 2026

3. The pleadings in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025, from which the above writ appeals arose, are the same as those in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025 is a Trustee of the Lazar Nadar Educational and Research Foundation Trust, which is a family Trust created as per Ext.P1 Trust deed No.97 of 1998 registered at SRO Neyyattinkara. The 7th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, is the husband of the petitioner in this writ petition. The 4th respondent is the elder brother of the 7th respondent. The 5th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent. The 6th respondent is the wife of the elder brother of the 7th respondent. Over and above the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025, it is pleaded in W.P.(C) No.25419 of 2025 that the 7th respondent challenged the order of the District Educational Officer dated 09.06.2025, by filing W.P.(C) No.21624 of 2025 before this Court, and by an interim order, this Court restrained appointments to the aided schools by the 8th respondent. With these pleadings, the petitioner sought the undermentioned reliefs in W.P.(C)No.25419 of 2025.

                  “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P19 order, meticulously scrutinise the same and set aside the same and thereby to restore the office of the existing manager of the aided schools under Lazar Nadar Educational & Research Foundation.

                  ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider the Ext. P18 letter and pass orders in it”.

                  3.1. Respondents 4 and 6 filed a counter-affidavit dated 09.08.2025, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Similarly, the 8th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 13.08.2025, praying for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025 and quashed Ext.P17 order dated 09.06.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent therein and also Ext.P18 communication bearing the very same date issued by the very same respondent. It was further directed that the 2nd respondent therein, namely, the District Educational Officer, shall reconsider the application submitted by the  3rd respondent, who is the appellant in W.A.No. 318 of 2026 for change of management to his name and pass orders therein after hearing the parties and adverting to the documents produced. The order was directed to be passed within three months from the receipt of a copy of that judgment. W.P.(C)No.25419 of 2025 was closed by the learned Single Judge in the light of the relief granted in W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025.

5. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.328 and 330 of 2026, Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A. Nos.313 and 318 of 2026, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.318 and 328 of 2026, Sri.G.Sreekumar Chelur, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.313 and 330 of 2026, and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective appellants in the writ appeals would submit that since a specific appellate remedy is available against the impugned Ext.P17 order in the writ petitions under Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions on that sole ground. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.328 and 330 of 2026, further submitted that the injunction order passed by the Munsiff Court was not in force at the time of passing the impugned order of approval by the District Educational Officer. Therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the writ petitions. The learned counsel further pointed out that as per the order dated 10.09.2025, the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.379 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the right of the appellant in W.A.Nos.313 and 318 of 2026 is approved by the said order of the Civil Court. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner cannot select different forums for the adjudication of the same issue.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in W.A.No.318 and 328 of 2026 - writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025 would submit that by Ext.P1 order dated 09.02.2007 produced in that writ petition, the appointment of the petitioner as the Manager of the school was approved with effect from 30.10.2006 onwards. The said appointment is in effect approved by Ext.P2 judgment dated 17.02.2010 in O.S.No.1095 of 2008 of the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Neyyattinkara and Ext.P3 judgment dated 07.12.2010 in W.P.(C)No.2535 of 2010 passed by this Court. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that a District Educational Officer cannot nullify the order of the Civil Court. Even if it is accepted for argument's sake that there was no order of injunction or status quo as on the date of passing of Ext.P17 order, Exts.P2 and P3 judgments were binding on the parties. The District Educational Officer failed to consider the effect of those judgments while passing Ext.P17 order. The meeting convened by the other members of the trust on 15.03.2025 is in violation of the directions in the judgment dated 09.04.2024 issued by this Court in O.P.(C)No.756 of 2022. The subjective satisfaction of the District Educational Officer is not sufficient to unsettle the judgment of the Civil Court, as well as of this Court. Even if there is any incorrectness in the judgment of the Civil Court, the District Educational Officer cannot take a stand that it is not binding on him, as done in Ext.P17 order. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act is applicable only in the case of a temporary injunction and therefore, Ext.P2 final judgment of the Civil Court dated 17.02.2010 in O.S.No.1095 of 2008 ought to have been considered by the District Educational Officer. Since the impugned order passed by the District Educational Officer is illegal, a writ petition is maintainable, though a provision is there under Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of the KER, to challenge that order.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.313 and 330 of 2026 - writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.25419 of 2025 supported the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in the other two writ appeals and addressed similar arguments.

9. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the exercise of authority under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules cannot be restrained by an order of temporary injunction.

10. We have carefully gone through the materials placed on record and appreciated the rival arguments addressed at the Bar. The order of temporary injunction was initially granted by the Munsiff Court Neyyattinkara, in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.379 of 2025 on 02.04.2025, restraining the defendants in that suit from taking further steps based on the decision taken in the meeting dated 15.03.2025 and restraining the 3rd respondent from acting as the Manager of the educational institutions and that order was in force until 21.05.2025. Thereafter, the order of status quo was granted by the Munsiff Court on 03.06.2025. Therefore, at the time of passing Ext.P17 order dated 09.06.2025 by the District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara, approving the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Manager of the school with effect from 15.03.2025, the order of the Civil Court in O.S.No.379 of 2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo as on that date was in force. While going through the impugned Ext.P17 order of the District Educational Officer, it can be seen that the said order was one passed on a finding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any injunction order restraining the District Educational Officer from approving the appointment of the Manager of the school, in view of Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958; and not based on a finding that the effect of status quo as on that date was the officiation of the 3rd respondent as the Manager.

11. It is trite that even if an order of a Court of law is without jurisdiction, the officer against whom such an order was issued is bound to follow the same, unless he challenges the same in the appellate Forum. The District Educational Officer, without challenging the interim order of injunction granted by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner restraining him from approving the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Manager of the school, himself arrived at a conclusion that the said order of the Civil Court is not binding on him. Though the aforesaid reason given by the District Educational Officer in Ext.P17 order is not acceptable, since the injunction order was actually not in existence at the time of passing the order by the District Educational Officer, but it was only an order of status quo as on 03.06.2025, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that Ext.P17 order of the District Educational Officer is liable to be interfered on the ground of violation of the injunction order passed by the Civil Court.

12. At the same time, from the order of the District Educational Officer, we notice that none of the other contentions raised by the petitioner was taken into consideration by the said officer while passing the impugned order. The effect of Exts.P2 and P3 judgments produced in W.P.(C)No.21624 of 2025 was not considered by the District Educational Officer. If the petitioners were really aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Educational Officer, there is a remedy provided to them under Chapter III Rule 4(3) of the KER, which says that any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer under sub-rule (1) of the Deputy Director (Education) under sub-rule (2) may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to the Director. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioners against Ext.P17 order of the District Educational Officer is filing an appeal before the Director within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order. Without exercising the said right, the petitioners approached this Court with the writ petitions. Even if the order is passed without consideration of the issues involved and is bereft of reasons, that is not a ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, especially when an efficacious alternative remedy is provided in the KER. Moreover, a civil suit in respect of the issue, though particularly not pertaining to the approval of the appointment of the 3rd respondent, is also pending before the competent Civil Court. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the District Educational Officer to reconsider the application submitted by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside.

                  In the result, these writ appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.21624 and 25419 of 2025, and the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, we make it clear that, challenging the impugned Ext.P17 order and the consequent Ext.P18 communication, the petitioners can approach the authority mentioned in Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER, subject to the Law of Limitation, excluding the period bona fide spent in this Court, through these writ petitions and writ appeals.