Permission of govt. required before alienating property of aided schools: HC
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has observed that before the property of an aided school is alienated, permission shall be obtained from the State government or any officer authorised by it in this regard.
The Bench made the observation while allowing an appeal by some teachers of a lower primary school in Manjeri against a single judge's order quashing the government order declining approval of a teacher nominated as manager by the person who purchased the school. The government had rejected approval on the ground that the owner of the property could only be made manager and a third party could not be appointed as the manager. The appellant contended that as owner N. Sidrathul Munthaha had not obtained any previous permission before obtaining title, the entire transaction is void under section 6(3) of the Kerala Education Act.
The Bench observed that before an aided school's property is alienated, it is the mandate of the law that permission shall be obtained from the government or any officer authorised by the government in this regard, and such permission cannot be obtained merely by invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), which is only a procedural rule enabling the recording of a change in ownership. The objective behind Section 6 of the Act is to ensure that the property belonging to an aided school is not alienated indiscriminately, jeopardizing the future of the students.
The Bench also directed the government to reconsider the matter afresh under Section 6 of the Act as well as under Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Cabinet nod for Indian Railways' line doubling projects: Freight traffic set to receive additional boost of 49 million tonnes annually
The Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved two line doubling projects of the Indian Railways, namely, the 133-km Koderma-Barkakana Doubling and the 185-km Ballari-Chikjajur Doubling, which cover a total of seven districts in Jharkhand, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The total estimated cost of the projects is Rs 6,405 crore. The Koderma-Barkakana line passes through a major coal producing area of Jharkhand. Along with this, it serves as the shortest rail link between Patna and Ranchi. The cost of doubling of the line is Rs 2,063 crore. According to the Ministry of Railways, line doubling will facilitate an additional cargo of 30.4 million tonnes (mt). It will connect four districts of Jharkhand, namely, Koderma, Chatra, Hazaribagh and Ramgarh. The project will be challenging from an engineering point of view since it will involve the construction of 17 major bridges, 180 minor bridges, 42 road over bridges (ROBs) and 13 road under bridges (RUBs). The project will provide connectivity to over 900 villages, the Indian Railways said. The second project Ballari-Chikjajur line crosses Ballari and Chitradurga districts of Karnataka and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. The total cost of the project is Rs 3,342 crore. According to the Indian Railways, the doubling of the rail line will facilitate the movement of additional cargo of 18.9 mt. It will cater to transport of iron ore, coking coal, finished steel, fertilisers, foodgrains, and petroleum products, among other items. The 185-km project will involve the construction of 19 stations, 29 major bridges, 230 minor bridges, 21 ROBs and 85 RUBs. The line will connect over 400 villages on the stretch. These two projects together will increase the existing network of Indian Railways by about 318 km and additional freight traffic of 49 mt per annum. Dheeraj Mishra is a Principal correspondent with The Indian Express, Business Bureau. He covers India's two key ministries- Ministry of Railways and Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. He frequently uses the Right to Information (RTI) Act for his stories, which have resulted in many impactful reports. ... Read More
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Maharashtra fills up all information commissioner posts, 5-year-old plea closed
The Maharashtra government on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that it has filled all vacancies for the posts of State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information before the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan submitted that the position of Chief Information Commissioner and seven posts of State Information Commissioners have all been court was hearing a petition filed five years ago by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and other activists working in the field of transparency and governance. The plea had sought the immediate filling of vacant posts and the creation of three additional posts of State Information Commissioners in line with a previous Supreme Court order. During the hearing, Advocate Sunil Ahya, representing Gandhi, requested the court to fix a timeframe of 45 days for the disposal of second appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing a large backlog of pending the bench acknowledged the concern, it pointed out that the RTI Act does not stipulate any specific time limit for deciding second appeals. However, the court observed, "It is trite law that even when a statute does not prescribe any limit for doing an act within a particular time, the same has to be done within a reasonable time."advertisementRegarding the demand for the creation of three additional posts, the state submitted that the financial implications of such a move are currently being considered, and an appropriate decision will be taken if the situation these submissions, the court disposed of the petition, bringing to a close a matter that had remained pending for half a decade.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC to hear afresh pleas against Maratha quota law from July 18
Mumbai: A special three-judge bench of Bombay high court will begin hearing afresh the challenges to state's latest iteration of the Maratha reservations on July 18. After the Supreme Court directive, HC, in May, constituted a new three-judge bench to hear the petitions, including those filed as public interest litigations, challenging the constitutional validity of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2024, which provides 10% reservation for the Maratha community in govt jobs and admissions to educational institutions. The state opposed the request for consideration of any interim relief. The new full bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge, N J Jamadar, and Sandeep Marne on Wednesday recorded submissions of advocate general Birendra Saraf. There were detailed arguments heard in 2024 on interim relief, after which there was an interim arrangement that all further admissions to educational institutions and employment would be subject to court orders. Saraf submitted that this has operated for over a year and that the request for fresh consideration of interim relief was unwarranted. Pradeep Sancheti, senior counsel for a petitioner, sought an earlier date. Other lawyers also argued, saying students who took admission last year were also affected and hence, were seeking interim orders. In May, Supreme Court asked HC to expeditiously hear the pleas, including applications by students appearing for the undergraduate and postgraduate National Eligibility cum Entrance Test of 2025. The students filed pleas seeking interim relief, claiming that a delay in the disposal of pleas was impacting their right to equal consideration in the admission process. The petitions were not fully heard when the then HC Chief Justice was transferred in Jan as Delhi high court Chief Justice. Supreme Court said if Bombay HC cannot hear the matter for final disposal then it may consider interim relief. HC has now fixed a schedule to hear the matter at length on the main challenge. Last July, HC had observed that the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission, headed by former HC judge Justice S B Shukre, was a necessary party to be heard in one of the PILs filed before it.
