STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. versus K.G. MADHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 19-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
v. 
K.G. MADHAVAN PILLAI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Kera/a Education Act, 1957/Kerala Education Rules-Sec-
tions 2(7), 2(8), 37/Chapter V-Rules 2, 2A, 9, 11 and 12-0pening 
new unaided recognised· Schools or upgrading existing schools-
Government according sanction to educational agencies-Later order 
c:; 
cancelled-Held Order vitiated by reason of non-observance of 
principles of naturaljustice. 
Respondents are running Private Schools. In pursuance of the 
State of Kerala publishing in the Gazette a final list of areas where new 
unaided recognised high schools/upper primary schools/lower primary 
D schools were to be opened or existing unaided lower primary schools/ 
upper primary schools were to be upgraded in the year 1986-87 the 
Respondents-educational agencies submitted applications for grant of 
sanction to open the unaided recognised schools or for upgrading the 
schools already run by them. These applications were duly inquired and 
considered by the District Educational Officer as also by the Director of 
i;. 
Education as per the Rules & procedure laid down therefor, particu-
larly Rules 24(3) and (4) and thereafter the Government considered the 
applications in accordance with Rule 2A(S) and took a final decision for 
grant of necessary sanction for opening/upgrading of 36 lower primary 
schools, 36 upper primary schools and 19 high schools, totalling in all 
91 schools in the list of areas selected. On 4.2.87, the State Government 
p issued an Order under Ex. P-4, granting sanction to the Respondents to 
open new unaided schools or to upgrade their existing schools subject to 
the conditions set out therein. However, by an Order Ex. P-5, dated 
20.2.87, the Government directed that the earlier order under Ex P-4 
be kept in abeyance. The Respondents challenged the Order of the 
Government by means of a Writ Petition. 
G 
During the pendency of the Writ Petition general elections were 
held to the ·Kerala Legislative Assembly as a result whereof a new 
Ministry assumed office. The Government under the new Ministry pas-
sed an order dated 19.5.87 under Ex P-7 cancelling in toto the order 
under Ex-P-4 granting sanction to the Respondents to open the school 
H or to_ upgrade the existing schools. 
94. 
STATE OF KERALA v. K.G.M. PILLAI 
95 
The Respondents thereupon amended their Petition suitably and A 
challenged the validity of the order of cancellation passed under Ex.P· 7. 
The Single Judge of the High Court before whom the Writ Petition first 
I 
came up for hearing took the view that while it was obligatory for the 
Government to follow the procedure prescribed in Rules 2 & 2A, Chap· 
ter V, if it was to permit the opening of new unaided recognised schools 
or upgradation of existing schools, the converse result would not follow 
B 
i.e. wherever the Government had gone through the procedure under 
the Rules the Government could not retrace its steps and was bound to 
proceed further in the matter and that the Governlnent had no option to 
reverse its decision. On. the question of revocation of the order of sane-
tion, however, the learned Judge held that the power to sanction new 
schools carried with it the inherent power of cancellation 11f an order c 
passed under Rule 2A(S). Accordingly the learned Single Judge dlsmls· 
sed the petitions. The respondents thereafter preferred appeals before 
the Division Bench. The Division Bench allowed the appeals, reversed 
the order passed by the Single Judge but granted only limited reliefs to 
the Respondents in that it quashed the order under Ex. p. 7 dated 
19.S.87 and issued a mandamus to the State Government to consider the 
D 
applications of the Respondents on their merits on the basis of the 
earlier order passed in their favour under Ex. p.4 dated 4.2.87. The 
Division Bench further held that the Respondents have /ocus-standi to 
challenge the order of cancellation and that the Government did not 
have the power or jurisdiction to revoke the cancellation order. It also 
held that the cancellation order violated the principle ofnaturaljust/ce. 
E 
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High 
Court, the State filed these appeals after obtaining special leave. 
Dismissing the appeals this Court, 
F 
HELD: The importance of securing recognition lies in the fact 
that without recognition the students studying in the unaided schools 
will neither be permitted to ap

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.