1. These two connected writ petitions are with reference to an educational institution stated to have been run by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28053 of 2024, who is the additional 7th respondent in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023.

2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023 have approached this Court pointing out that respondents 5 and 6 are running an educational institution (the additional 7th respondent) without obtaining the relevant licence / recognition required with reference to the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short “ the Act”). They have pointed out that, on the basis of a complaint filed by them, a report (Ext.P4) was prepared by the 3rd respondent herein addressed to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by the proceedings at Ext.P10 having found that the educational institution is being run without any recognition, appropriate action requires to be taken in the matter. They have also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent - District Collector to act on the basis of Exts.P4 and P10 referred to above. Further direction to the 2nd respondent on the basis of Ext.P4 report is also sought for. The subsequent writ petition – W.P.(C) No. 28053 of 2024 has been filed by the afore referred educational institution seeking to challenge the proposed direction on the basis of Ext.P1 issued by the 1st respondent therein, directing the petitioner therein to close the educational institution and also issue transfer certificate to the students studying there.

3. I have heard Sri.S.K.Adhithyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023, Sri.Nazif K.N representing Sri.P.S.Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28053 of 2024, as well as the Sri.N.B.Sunilnath, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel representing the educational institution sought to rely on Ext.P12 produced in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023 issued by the District Collector to contend that since the District Collector has already passed orders on the basis of the proceedings at Ext.P10 issued by the 2nd respondent, the writ petition itself is infructuous. He would also point out to the stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent in support of the afore contention.

5. This court on 17.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023 had issued an order, making it clear that the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the educational authorities, if the same is functioning without recognition. Though the afore order dated 17.07.2024 was the subject matter of challenge in W.A.No.1283 of 2024 at the behest of the educational institution, a Division Bench of this Court rejected the appeal, holding that the stop memo could be challenged in appropriate proceedings.

6. The learned counsel for the educational institution would also rely on Ext.R7(k) dated 28.11.2024, an accreditation granted by the National Institute of Open Schooling to point out that the school at least with reference to the afore is running with valid a recognition and therefore, cannot be shutdown.

7. At the same time, this Court takes note of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, as per which it is mandatory for every school / educational institution to obtain an appropriate recognition from the Government concerned. Here there is no dispute about the fact that the educational institution - the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28053 of 2024, is running the same without valid recognition from the concerned Government. This Court also takes note of the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the educational institution (the additional 7th respondent in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023) in paragraph 3 to the effect that the said institution is imparting preschool education for about 300 students teaching Quran and allied subjects.

8. Sri.S.K.Adhithyan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023 would place reliance of the judgment of this Court in Trustee, Hidaya Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (1) KHC 775], wherein this Court has frowned upon the conduct of educational institutions in the afore manner, in the following lines:-

                  “26. This issue has to be examined in yet another perspective. The RTE Act was enacted by the parliament after the insertion of Art.21A in the Constitution. Under S.29, the Act mandates that the curriculum and evaluation procedure should be as laid down by the appropriate authority to be specified by the government. Appropriate authority, as defined under S.2(a)(ii)(A) in relation to school within the State, is the State Government. In such circumstances, no school which is required to have recognition shall impart any religious instruction or religious study without permission from the State Government.

                  ............................

                  28. In this case there is a clear finding that the petitioner imparts religious instruction exclusively following Islamic religious. This cannot be permitted. Since it offends the very fabric of the secular society, the Government is justified in ordering closure of the school. However, taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to desist from imparting religious instructions or study without permission from the Government. In light of the fact that this issue is of great significance, the Secretary of General Education Department is directed to issue a general government order directing all recognised private schools in the State to desist from imparting religious instruction or religious study without permission from the Government. In light of the above, if the Government finds that inspite of the direction, schools including that of the petitioner violates such order, the Government can initiate action for closure and derecognition of such schools.”

9. In the afore circumstances, I am of the opinion that the educational institution - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28053 of 2024 may not be entitled for running the same without a valid recognition with reference to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.

10. In that view of the matter, I allow W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2023 directing the competent among the respondents to take note of the findings in this judgment and take appropriate steps to shutdown the educational institution. Taking note of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the educational institution that a reasonable time may be extended for making alternate arrangements, this Court direct the respondents to permit the educational institution to run the school for the academic year 2025- 26.

                  In view of the afore findings, W.P.(C) No.28053 of 2024 would stand dismissed.