Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Kerala High Court Rules Against Unapproved Mortgage of School Properties, Cites Violation of Education Act*

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has quashed a notice of sale of immovable property (Ext.P6) and declared that the Educational Agency responsible for managing a school had no right to mortgage certain properties without obtaining the required permission under the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and Rules 1959.

 The case, WP(C) No. 7988 of 2020, centered around the unauthorized mortgage of school properties and was brought before the court by Swaroop V., the Manager of PAMM Upper Primary School in Palakkad.

 The court, in its judgment delivered on August 10, 2023, observed that:

  "The 5th respondent who is an Educational Agency, without giving a mandate in Rule 1 of Chapter X and without obtaining permission from the authorities, and Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, has mortgaged the properties of the School specifically stated as item nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.P6 notice, describing it as residential properties, even though it belongs to the School and lying as a playground."

 This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the Rules 1959, which require prior written permission for any sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge, or transfer of possession in respect of properties of aided schools.

 The court further emphasized the legislative intent behind these provisions, stating:

  "The legislative intent behind the ban under Section 6 is the well maintenance and proper conduct of the aided schools, which is absolutely essential in the public interest."

 As a result of this judgment, Ext.P6 was quashed to the extent it related to item nos. 2 and 3, and it was declared that the 5th respondent did not have the right to mortgage the properties without obtaining the necessary permission.

 This verdict serves as a reminder of the legal obligations placed on educational agencies and school managers when dealing with school properties and highlights the need for strict compliance with the law to ensure the proper functioning of aided schools.

Date of Decision:  Thursday, the 10th day of August 2023

SWAROOP V. vs STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kerala-THE-10TH-DAY-OF-AUGUST-2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News