Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

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