Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Declare that the Ext.P2 amendment to the trust deed is null and void.
(v) Declare that the Ext.P1 trust deed is void ab initio.
(vi) Declare that the approval of Ext.P3, Ext.P4 bye-law is invalid and illegal".

3. Respondents 5 to 7 filed a counter affidavit dated 26.08.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(h) documents. The respondents 5 to 7 contended in the counter affidavit that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as far as the reliefs sought therein, and also for the reason that it lacks pleadings in support of a writ of certiorari. It is further contended by the respondents that Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act has no application to the facts of the case. Moreover, if the appellant relies on Section 6, she has to avail an alternative remedy available to her under Section 6(2) of the Kerala Education Act. Paragraphs 5 to 14 of that counter affidavit read thus:

(underline supplied)

19. The dispute involved in this case is based on several factual issues. Admittedly, the appellant is a signatory in the minutes of a meeting held by the trust on various dates in the year 2013, during which the trust deed was amended. She came up with the objection to the appointment of the 5 th respondent as WA No.1117 of 2025 2025:KER:73190 the Manager only in the year 2023, contending that the amendment effected to the trust deed is void. By Ext.R5(c) decision taken in the meeting held on 21.09.2023, the trustees unanimously decided to entrust the management of the school to the trust. While considering the entire facts and circumstances in the light of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, we concur with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the dispute raised by the appellant can be adjudicated only in a properly instituted civil suit. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.