1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

                   i. “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 7th Respondent, Secretary of Erattupetta Municipality to issue approval letter forthwith on Exhibit P4 application, to the petitioner school to complete the formalities and for onward transmission to the respondent 1 and 2 for granting approval to introduce the co-education scheme in the petitioner school.

                   ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent 1 and 2 to grant permission to start the co-education scheme in the petitioner school without insisting for the receipt of approval letter from the 6th respondent Municipality, so as to enable the petitioner to start the co-education during the academic year 2026-2027 itself.

                   iii. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P3 circular and quash the same, to the extent it insist for approval of the Municipality for applying the co-education scheme, after declaring that such a procedure is not the one contemplated in the relevant Statute or Rules.

                   iv. To declare that the Model Code of Conduct is not a bar for consideration of the Petitioners application by the 6th or 7th or 1st and 2nd respondent in granting approval to start co-education.”

2. The petitioner school, Muslim Girls’ Higher Secondary School, is a Government-aided minority educational institution established in the year 1964.

3. The main challenge in the writ petition is that Ext.P3 circular issued by the Government, insisting for the approval of the local self Government for introducing co-education in aided school.

4. Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Clause (4) of Ext. P3 circular is unenforceable and arbitrary, as it has no statutory backing either under the Municipality Act or under the Kerala Education Rules. He submits that, as per Rule 12 of the Kerala Education Rules, the power to permit deviation from the status of a girls’ school and to allow the admission of boys vests exclusively with the Director of Education. In otherwords, there is no statutory requirement for obtaining approval of the local self Government institution, for introducing co-education in a girls school.

5. The learned counsel would further point out that there are no guidelines or procedure prescribed in Ext.P3 circular for granting approval by the Municipality. In the absence of such guidelines or procedure, the power to grant an approval entrusted to the local body is arbitrary and likely to be misused.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4 representation dated 18.02.2026 to the 7th respondent, the Secretary, Erattupetta Municipality, seeking approval of the Municipality as per Ext. P3 circular. There was no positive response from the Municipality. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and instituted W.P.(C) No. 10617 of 2026. By Ext. P8 judgment dated 19.03.2026, this Court directed the Secretary, Erattupetta Municipality (2nd respondent therein), to consider Ext. P4 application and to pass appropriate orders within three weeks.

7. The learned counsel further pointed out that, in spite of the specific direction from this Court, the 7th respondent has failed to dispose of Ext. P4 application, for reasons best known to them. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the 7th respondent to grant approval forthwith.

8. The learned counsel submitted that the next academic year would commence on 01.06.2026 and that the school authorities have to make the necessary arrangements in the school for starting co-education. Further delay in the grant of approval from the local authority would hinder the decision of the school management to introduce co-education in the school.

9. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the policy of Government is to introduce co-education in Government schools.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that they have no serious objection for granting approval as per Ext. P3 circular. He further pointed out that some complaints were received from the neighbouring schools in this regard.

11. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 13677 of 2026, has been filed by K.A. Mohammed Ashraf challenging the introduction of co-education, and that the matter is posted to 15.06.2026.

12. I have heard and carefully considered the submissions advanced and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.

13. I have also gone through Ext.P3 circular issued by the Government. In Ext.P3 circular, it is made clear that the policy of the Government is to promote co-education. The stand of the Government is to convert the girls only school and boys only school to mixed school. Certain guidelines were issued in Ext. P3 circular to ensure the necessary infrastructure, including furniture and facilities such as drinking water, separate toilet facilities for boys and girls, playground, and so on. But, however, I am unable fathom why clause (4) insists an approval from the concerned local authority. What is the role of local authority in converting girls only school to mixed school or a boys only school to mixed school is not clear from the above circular.

14. It is pertinent to note that, even though Clause (4) insists on approval from the local authority, no procedure such as inspection, etc., is provided in the guidelines. The vesting of blanket powers with an authority without prescribing the procedures to be followed by such authority, would lead to arbitray exercise of powers.

15. Considering the urgency and the inaction on the part of the 7th respondent Municipality, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition to the following directions:

                   (i) The 7th respondent, the Secretary of the Municipality, shall grant approval to the petitioner school as per Clause (4) of Ext. P3 circular within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                   (ii) If the 7th respondent fails to grant approval within the said period of three days, the school management may proceed with the introduction of co-education in the school even without the approval of the local authority. The petitioner school shall forward a copy of this judgment to the 7th respondent by email and also produce the physical copy of the judgment before the Municipality.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.