Kerala High Court
N.Chellappan Pilla vs S.Narayana Sarma on 31 March, 2011
Bench: A.K.Basheer, P.Q.Barkath Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 120 of 2002()
1. N.CHELLAPPAN PILLA, KIZHAKKUKAMBIYIL
... Petitioner
2. V.G.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, VADASSERY VEEDU,
3. R.BHASKARAN PILLAI, THUNDUVILA VEEDU,
4. J.THANKAMONY AMMA, KALAYAKOKOTTU VEEDU,
5. R.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU
6. S.RAVEENDRAN, VEMPANATTUVILA VEEDU,
7. N.N.SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, KANISSERY VEEDU
8. N.N.VISWANATHAN, CHARUVILA, PANKONAM,
9. K.SOMANATHAN, VILAKATHU VEEDU, PERAYAM,
10. V.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KARINJAMPALLI
11. R.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, CHANDRA NIVAS,
12. P.BHASKARA KURUP, KRISHNA MANDIRAM,
Vs
1. S.NARAYANA SARMA,VADAKKEDATHU ILLAM,
... Respondent
2. V.KOCHAYYAPPAN PILLAI, GEETHA PLACE,
3. S.GOVINDAPILLAI, PALIKUDAMVILA VEEDU,
4. P.GANGADHARAN PILLAI,
5. P.PARVATHY ANTHARJANAM,
6. V.N.SUBRAMANIA SARMA,
7. V.CHANDRIKAKUTTY,W/O.SUBRAMANIA SARMA,
8. V.THULASIBHAYI AMMA,
9. E.K.MOHANA CHANDRAN,
10. B.SARASWATHI AMMA,
11. R.RAJIKUMAR,
12. K.CHANDRAPRASAD S/O. LATE G.BHASKARAN,
13. J.BABY, D/O.LATE K.BHASKARAN,
14. K.PRABHAKARAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU,
15. K.CHELLAMMA AMMA,
16. C.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,
17. C.SIVADASAN PILLAI,
18. N.MANIKANDANPILLAI,
19. N.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, GOWRI VILASATHU,
20. A.TATNAMMA AMMA, RENAVIHAR,
21. S.VIJAYAN PILLAI, GOWRI VILASATHU,
22. K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,SARASWATHY VILASAM,
23. G.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, PUTHEN VEEDU,
24. S.K.HARILAL, S/O.V.KOCHYYAPPAN PILLAI,
25. R.RAJENDRAN PILLAI,
26. G.RADHAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE R.GOPALA PILLAI
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :31/03/2011
O R D E R
A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
A.S.No.120 of 2002 &
W.P.(C)No.18334 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellants are defendant Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 to 20 in O.S.No.5/1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam.
2. The above suit was instituted under Section 92 read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, primarily with a prayer to remove defendant No.1 as President and Treasurer of Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust and also from the managership of M.G.T. School. The plaintiffs further prayed that defendants 2 to 9 also be removed from the Board of Trustees and a suitable scheme be framed and settled for the proper administration of the Trust. The other prayer was for a direction to the defendants to render accounts and also to deliver possession of the properties and records of the Trust to the new Trustees to be elected.
3. Initially the suit was instituted by three members of the Trust. Later, supplemental plaintiffs 4 to 18 and supplemental defendants 10 to 24 were impleaded in their capacity either as legal representatives of some of the deceased plaintiffs/defendants or as persons claiming to be interested in the Trust.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the gist of the case of the plaintiffs may be briefly noticed.
AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 2
5. Plaintiffs 1 to 3, who had initially instituted the suit, contended that they along with defendants 1 to 6 and 10 others executed a Trust Deed on January 25, 1968 for the purpose of "advancement of the educational, agricultural, social and cultural development of the people within the Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat". The Trust was registered before the Sub Registrar's Office, Kannanalloor on the same day. The plaintiffs asserted that it was a Public Trust and the properties described in plaint A schedule were transferred in favour of the Trust. While plaintiffs 1 and 2 remitted `.100/- each towards subscription, plaintiff No.3 had remitted `.200/-. They stated that the suit was being instituted on behalf of the entire members of the Trust in a representative capacity. They also filed a petition under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the court to sue in a representative capacity.
6. The plaintiffs alleged that fifteen members to the first Board of Trustees were elected on January 26, 1968 in a meeting held at Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat Ground. Defendant No.1 was elected as the President of the Trust. In fact, even before the execution of the Trust Deed, a managing committee was constituted with defendant No.1 as the President. The managing committee purchased a piece of land having an extent of 3 acres 15 cents described in plaint A schedule for a consideration of `.19,500/- for the purpose of establishing a High School. Twenty six persons mentioned in the plaint had contributed a sum of `.15,150/- for this purpose. The balance amount was taken as a loan from defendant No.2. The High School started functioning during the Academic Year 1968-69 itself in a AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 3 thatched shed. Construction of the permanent building of the school was started during the said Academic year itself and it was completed in 1974.
7. It was also alleged that defendant No.1 and other members of the Board of Trustees did not maintain proper accounts and that the affairs of the Trust were being carried on by defendant No.1 without consulting the other members of the Board. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that though seventeen years had elapsed after creation of the Trust, neither defendant No.1, in his capacity as President, nor the other members ever bothered to convene any meeting of the Board or the General Body. Though the term of the Board of Trustees was three years, no election was held to reconstitute the Board from time to time. No annual meetings were also held. Defendant No.1 had, without the consent or knowledge of the Board of Trustees or the General Body, assumed the role of Manager of the School. He fabricated records and previled upon officials of the Education Department to get himself recognized as the Manager of the school. Though defendant No.1 had received `.5,34,500/- by way of donation, he had spent only a sum of `.2,38,500/- for the purpose of the Trust. No account was opened in the name of the Trust in any Bank. The plaintiffs further alleged that huge amounts were collected for appointing teachers in the School which never got reflected in the accounts.
8. Separate written statements were filed by defendants 1, 6, 7 and
9. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement while defendants 4, 8 and 10 to 20 also filed a separate joint written statement. Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 supported the plaint allegations and put the entire blame for AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 4 mismanagement of the Trust and the School on defendant No.1.
9. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied all the allegations made against him in the plaint and contended that affairs of the Trust were being managed in terms of the clauses contained in the Trust Deed. He asserted that the meetings of the Board and the general body were being convened from time to time and elections were also held regularly. He stated that the Minutes Book maintained by the Trust would reveal that plaintiff No.1 had signed the minutes relating to the meetings of the Trust held till March 6, 1983. The accounts were also being maintained properly, he asserted. He denied the allegation that he had received `.3,60,500/- by way of donations. He denied the further allegation that he had misappropriated the trust fund of `.5,34,000/-. He had not spent any money belonging to the Trust without the consent or knowledge of the general body. He had not acquired any property in the name of his relatives by misappropriating the Trust funds. Similarly, he had not misused the maintenance grant received from the Government. He further stated that regular and correct accounts were being maintained. These accounts were regularly audited also. In short, defendant No.1 denied the entire allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation.
10. Defendant Nos.6, 7 and 9 in their separate written statements and defendants Nos.10 to 20 in their joint written statement supported the case of defendant No.1.
11. Following issues were raised by the court below:
AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 5
"1. Is not the suit maintainable?
2. Has the 1st defendant functioning as the President and Treasurer or the Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust (Plaint Trust) and the manager of M.G.T High School, misappropriated Trust funds? If so, what is the quantum or the amount so misappropriated?
3. Is the 1st defendant liable to be removed from the office of the President and Treasurer of the plaint trust?
4. Is the 1st defendant liable to be removed from the office of the manager of M.G.T High School?
5. Are defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9, liable to be removed from the office of Members of the board of trustees of the plaint trust?
6. Is an order directing accounts to be taken, liable to be passed?
7. Is a scheme, for the administration of the plaint Trust, to be settled?
8. Reliefs and costs".
12. It appears that after the commencement of the trial, a compromise petition was filed by plaintiffs 3 and 4 and defendants 1 and 2 and some others. The court below took the view that the compromise will not affect those persons who were not parties to it and that the case can be decided only after recording evidence of the parties. The above view taken by the court below was affirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1265/2000. Taking note of the above compromise petition, the court below raised an additional issue, which is extracted hereunder:
AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 6
"Whether Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust is a public or private one? If so, whether the compromise dated 23.11.1998 is binding on the persons not parties to the compromise".
13. Thereafter recording of evidence was completed. PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B28 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exhibits C1 and C2 prepared by the Advocate Commissioner were also marked in the case.
14. The court below entered a finding on issue No.1 that the Trust was not a private trust as contended by defendant No.1 and others who supported him. The court below also found that the compromise that was filed before the court would not bind the beneficiaries, who are the general public of Thrikovilvattom Panchayat. Accordingly, it was held that additional plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit. The court below considered issue Nos. 2 to 5 together and held that defendant Nos.1, 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 were liable to be removed from the Trust in its best interest. On issue No.6 the court below held that a preliminary decree for accounting had to be passed. The court below also held that a new scheme need not be framed as prayed for in the suit and it would be sufficient, if the receiver is permitted to enlist new members to the Trust and conduct an election thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the Trust deed.
15. Accordingly a decree was passed for removing defendant No.1 from the office of the President and Treasurer of Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust and also from the post of Manager of the school. Similarly defendant AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 7 Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9 were removed from the Board of Trustees. The official receiver was directed to prepare a list of members of the Trust for the purpose of conducting election to the Board.
16. Sri. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the appellants, has confined his arguments only against the finding entered by the court below that Exhibit A1 Trust is a Public Trust. While assailing the above finding, he submits that the salient features of public and private trusts were not properly considered or construed by the court below in their proper perspective. Learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the various clauses contained in Exhibit A1 Trust deed elaborately. He has also invited our attention to the Minutes of the various Board meetings in Exhibit B22 Minutes Book. According to learned Senior Counsel, the documents available on record, if appreciated properly, will unerringly show that the people who were responsible for forming the Trust had no intention or idea to establish a Public Trust.
17. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the minutes of the very first meeting will clinchingly and unerringly show that the intention of the people of the locality was to form a Public Trust. He points out that the residents of Thrikkovilvattam Panchayat had participated in the said meeting for the sole purpose of exploring the possibility of establishing a High School at Mukhathala. More importantly, the said meeting was convened pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat in this regard, at its meeting held on December 30, 1967. He submits that it was not as though only a few selected individuals had AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 8 gathered at the Panchayat Office and taken a decision to form a Private Trust. He further submits that the minutes of the various other meetings held later will also reveal that the Trust had been formed as a public entity. The very fact that the Panchayat had taken the initiate to convene the first meeting will show that the Trust formed under Exhibit A1 is not a private venture.
18. We will refer to the relevant minutes of the various meetings in Exhibit B22 a little later. But, at this juncture, it may be noticed that the sole purpose of the Trust, as is discernible from Exhibit A1 Trust Deed, was to establish a High School at Mukhathala within the limits of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat. It is also on record that the School started functioning during the Academic Year 1968-69 itself. The land owners, from whom small bits of land had to be purchased for the establishment of the School, were identified and the land value payable to them was fixed by the Committee constituted for this purpose. A temporary shed was constructed. A Headmaster, eight Teachers, one Peon and one Sweeper were appointed by the Board at its meeting held on June 2, 1968.
19. We have already referred to the minutes of the first meeting held at the Panchayat Office, which was convened by the President of the Panchayat (defendant No.1), who later became the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Manager of the School. He continued as the Manager till the Official Receiver was appointed by the trial court.
20. Learned senior counsel has invited our attention to some of the clauses in the Trust Deed, which is marked in the case as Exhibit A1. While AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 9 contending for the position that the authors of the Trust had made it explicitly clear in the Deed itself that it was not going to be a Public Trust, learned senior counsel points that there were three categories of members. The minimum subscription was fixed as `.100/-. Any individual who paid the minimum subscription was enrolled as a member. Similarly, a member who paid `.1,000/- or more automatically became a member of the Board of Trustees without being elected. The third category comprised of members who paid `.2,000/- or more. Clause 6 in Exhibit A1 made it clear that such members shall have "right of hereditary" and that they shall automatically become members of the Board of Trustees. He submits that, if, in fact, it were a Public Trust, such hereditary right would not have been conferred on the members. Similarly, there would have been no clause for automatic election to the Board of Trustees if it were a Public Trust.
21. We have carefully gone through the Trust Deed (Exhibit A1) and the Minutes Book (Exhibit B22), which we have referred to earlier. It is true that in the minutes of the first meeting held at the Panchayat Office, the expression "Private Trust" will find a place at one or two places. But, as has been noticed already, the residents of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat apparently wanted to establish an Educational Institution in Mukhathala area. This was a long felt need of the local people; prominent among whom had shown keen interest in the matter. Incidentally, defendant No.1 was the President of the Panchayat during the relevant period. Obviously, he had taken the initiative to convene a public meeting of the local residents at the Panchayat Office. If, in fact, defendant No.1 and a few of his associates AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 10 wanted to form a Private Trust, a public meeting for this purpose would not have been held at the Panchayat Office. Significantly, all the six meetings of the Board of Trustees, including the preliminary public meeting referred to above, were held in the Panchayat Office as could be seen from Exhibit B22. The subsequent meetings of the Board were held at the school premises in the newly constructed temporary building. The reference to Private Trust in the first meeting at two places in our view is insignificant and irrelevant for the reasons stated by us above. The appellants have not produced any other document apart from this Minutes Book to show that the Trust was formed as a Private Trust. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to concur with the finding entered by the trial court that Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust was formed as a Public Trust.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others (AIR 1957 SC 133) while addressing us on the basic test which would determine the status and character of a Trust. In the above case, the main dispute related to an idol installed in a temple. Question that arose was whether the temple was a private or public temple, in which all the Hindus would be entitled to worship. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the case in detail. After noticing the principles as enunciated in various text books, their Lordships observed thus:
"The distinction between a private and public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 11 general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter, they constitute a body which is incapable to ascertainment."
23. The following excerpt quoted by their Lordships from the text book Lewin on Trusts, (15th edition) is apposite.
"By public must be understood such as are constituted for the benefit either of the public at large or of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description. To this class belong all trusts for charitable purposes and indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be considered in general as synonymous expressions.
In private trust the beneficial interest is vested absolutely in one or more individuals who are or within a certain time may be definitely ascertained."
24. Coming back to the case on hand, it has already been noticed that the local residents of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat had nurtured a long cherished dream of establishing an Educational Institution in that area. The minutes of the first public meeting itself will indicate that large number of local residents had gathered at the Panchayat Office. More importantly, the opening sentence of the minutes will show that the said meeting was convened pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat at its meeting held on December 30, 1967. The participants had elaborately discussed the feasibility of establishment of a School. It was noticed that the dream could not be fulfilled so far, only because of paucity of funds. It was resolved that AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 12 a Trust be formed comprising of the "benevolent citizens of the Panchayat".
A managing committee, consisting of 14 members from among the participants, was formed in that meeting for preliminary work.
25. In our view, the above minutes of the first meeting by itself will show that Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust was formed as a Public Trust and the beneficiaries were the unascertained local residents of the Panchayat, particularly from Mukhathala area. We have perused the Minutes of the subsequent meetings also carefully. The local residents had subscribed to the Trust by remitting the requisite fee. There is nothing in any of these Minutes which will indicate that the intention of the participants was to form a Private Trust. In any view of the matter, we have no hesitation to concur with the finding entered by the trial court that the Trust was formed for the benefit of the entire people of Thrikkovilvattom Panchayat as a Public Trust. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the oral evidence adduced by the parties, since in our view the documentary evidence will clinch the issue in favour of the plaintiffs.
26. While dealing with issue Nos.2 to 5, the court below held that defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were liable to be removed from the Trusteeship for the omissions and commissions on their part. The court below has referred to the various circumstances as brought out in evidence while holding so. The court below noticed that the Day Book produced in the case did not show either receipt or expenditure of the huge funds that came to the credit of the Trust. One contention raised by defendant No.1, as regards the huge funds that came into the hands of the Board of Trustees, AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 13 was that he had raised funds from other sources apart from the funds collected from the public. One source that he pointed out was through cultivation in the property of the School. But, the court below noticed that Exhibits B22 and B23 Minutes Book clearly established that contributions were collected by issuing coupons to the public. The Day Book did not contain any entries with regard to these contributions/collections. It was in the above circumstance that the court below came to the conclusion that there was total mismanagement of the funds collected from the public.
27. There is yet another very important and significant aspect which has to be looked into in this case. It is on record that during the pendency of the suit, a so called compromise petition signed by some of the members was filed. In the said compromise petition dated November 23, 1998, plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 21 were the signatories. In this compromise petition, these signatories stated that a settlement had been reached among the parties agreeing that it was a Private Trust. The compromise petition was taken on record and compromise was recorded subject to the result of the suit. Subsequently, before taking up the case for trial, the court below raised an additional issue which we have already extracted in the earlier part of this judgment.
28. Additional issue No.9 related to the question whether the Mukhathala Gramaodharana Trust was public or private and whether the compromise dated November 23, 2008 was binding on the persons who were not parties to it.
AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 14
29. The court below after considering the above issue held that the attempt of the authors and signatories of the said compromise was only to defeat the very purpose of creation of the Trust. The court below noticed that 15 surviving members of the Trust had entered into the so called compromise. Thus by the order passed in I.A.No.1380/1998, the court below found that the compromise allegedly entered into by the surviving trustees had no binding effect on the Trust. The court further found that the signatories to the compromise cannot convert a Public Trust into a Private Trust by entering into a so called compromise. After considering the clauses in the proposed amendment the court below concluded that the attempt of the authors of the compromise was apparently to take over the trust and convert it into a private trust.
30. We do not propose to deal with this issue any further, since we have already held that Exhibit A1 Trust is a Public Trust. The suit was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the court below has, in our view, rightly issued direction to ensure that a proper voters list is prepared after enlisting new members and to hold election to elect new trustees. In short, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the court below. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
W.P.(C)No.18334/2009
31. The above writ petition has been filed by the Parent Teachers' Association with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 15 other appropriate writ or direction to the State of Kerala and the competent officers in the Department of Education to provide sufficient number of regular teachers in Mukhathala Gramodharana Trust High School for taking classes in all subjects against all sanctioned posts and also to fill up the vacant posts of non teaching staff in various cadres. There is a further prayer to direct the authorities to take immediate steps to release maintenance grant to the School.
32. As has been noticed already, the functioning of the School has been totally unsatisfactory, in the sense that there has not been any proper managerial supervision for the last several years for obvious reasons.
33. In the course of hearing of these cases, it was brought to our notice that by order dated April 1, 2003, the District Educational Officer, Kollam, was put in charge of the School. It appears that prior to this the trial court had appointed a member of the Kollam Bar as the Official Receiver to manage the affairs of the School. But, shortly after institution of the appeal before this Court, the Official Receiver had submitted a report expressing his inability to continue in that capacity. It was therefore that this Court had put the District Educational Officer, Kollam in charge of the affairs of the School.
34. Shortly after filing this appeal, this Court had, by its order in C.M.P.No.2348/2002, permitted the Official Receiver to appoint eight teachers in the School. We are informed that as on today seventeen teachers, including the Headmistress, are working in the School. It is brought to our notice that four teachers were allowed to draw vacation AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 16 salary on the strength of the order. Smt.Sudhadavi.K. was allowed to continue as teacher in Physical Science on the strength of the order in I.A. No.422/2004. She is continuing in that post even now. It is not disputed before us that the appointment of all these seventeen teachers made against sanctioned posts were approved by the Department with effect from their respective dates of appointment.
35. Coming to the question of regularisation of the services of the teachers in the school, it has to be noticed that by order dated July 12, 2002 in C.M.P.No.2348/2002, the Official Receiver was permitted to appoint 8 teachers in the school. The Official Receiver who had been continuing as manager of the school on the strength of the order in C.M.P.No.174/2002 had accordingly appointed the teachers. Their appointments were also approved by the department. We are informed that two out of the above 8 teachers have resigned. Therefore, only 6 out of the 8 are now in service. Apart from these six HSAs (core subjects), there are three HSAs (Malayalam) and two HSAs (Hindi) in addition to a Physical Education Teacher. We are further informed that three of these eleven HSAs are protected teachers.
36. When the appeal came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, we were informed that the District Educational Officer, who was put in charge of the management of the School, had not been filing periodical reports before this Court as directed. We were also informed that there was no proper upkeep and maintenance of the School and its properties and that there was no effective supervision of the affairs of the AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 17 Institution. Therefore, we directed the District Educational Officer to appear before us and file a report about the present state of affairs.
37. It turned out that the District Educational Officer was totally in the dark about the affairs of the School since she had assumed charge only recently. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Education filed a report as directed by us. What is discernible from the input furnished by the Officer is that there is no proper supervision and control of the affairs of the School.
38. Anyhow, we do not intend to deal with that issue at this stage. We make it clear that the six teachers appointed by the official receiver pursuant to the order in C.M.P.No.2348/2002 shall be entitled to get all emoluments and service benefits for their approved service from the date of their appointment. Of course there is no dispute that these six teachers are being paid their salary now. It is made clear that they shall be treated as regular hands and their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of entry in service, if there is no other statutory impediment and also subject to the seniority of the other teachers in the school. The District Educational Officer shall take appropriate steps to ensure that all the eligible service benefits are released to the teachers, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
39. As regards the management of the school, it is on record that the District Educational Officer, Kollam was put in charge by this court during the pendency of this appeal. He is even now continuing to hold the charge of the manager. In the course of hearing of this appeal, we had called for a report from the officer. This report has revealed that the state of affairs AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 18 in the school is not at all satisfactory. The annual maintenance grant is not being collected from the Government for the last several years. We are also informed that anti social elements are having a field day and even the minimum basic amenities are not available in the school; leave alone the essential furniture and other paraphernalia; both for the teachers and the students. We are also informed that the building is in urgent need of repair and maintenance. Evidently the District Educational Officer is not in a position to attend to the administrative work of the school.
40. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the District Educational Officer has to be relieved from the onerous responsibility of looking after the affairs of the school with immediate effect. Necessary adhoc arrangement has to be made not only to look after the affairs of the school, but also to see that the directions issued by the court below for a smooth transition of power of the trust to a new Board of Trustees are implemented. For this purpose, election has to be held to the Board of Trustees after enrolling new members as provided in Exhibit A1 Trust Deed.
41. Therefore, we appoint Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran, Retired District Judge, 'Karthika', Ammankovil Street, Near Collectorate, Thevalli, Kollam, as the Receiver. He shall assume charge of the affairs of the Trust and the school on receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall carry out the directions issued by the trial court. If any further clarifications or directions are found necessary, it will be open to the Receiver to approach the court below. The monthly remuneration of the receiver is provisionally fixed as AS 120/02 & WPC 18334/09 19 `.40,000/- in addition to other expenses. It is made clear that the final remuneration payable to the Receiver shall be decided by the court below at a later stage after he completes his assignment. The Receiver will be at liberty to meet the initial expenses, if any, out of his pocket, if funds are not available in the account of the Trust, to be reimbursed to him later. The District Educational Officer shall hand over all the records relating to the school to the Receiver forthwith.
Appeal and writ petition are disposed of in the above terms.
Registry shall communicate a copy of the judgment to Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran, Retired District Judge, to enable him to assume charge forthwith.
(A.K.Basheer, Judge) (P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge) cl/rkc/jes