Shanmugha Vilasom Higher Secondary School vs S. Jayachandran

Sathish Ninan, J

The first plaintiff in the suit is in appeal challenging the interim order of injunction against the plaintiffs. The dispute appertains to the administration of the “Clappana Shanmugha Vilasom Higher Secondary School”. As per the order impugned, the plaintiffs have been restrained from convening Annual General Body Meeting of the School and from conducting election to its Managing Committee.

The suit is filed seeking a declaration that, SNDP branches 181, 182 and 443 do not have any direct nexus with the administration of the school and that the right of management vests with the “Sreenarayaneeyars” residing within the territories of Clappana North SNDP Branch No.181, Clappana Central SNDP Branch No.182 and Clappana South SNDP Branch No.443. According to the contesting defendants the right of management vests with the three branches and that only those persons who are having membership of SNDP Yogam could be included in the general body.

In brief, the facts which led to the present appeal are as under: -

Election to the Managing Committee of the School was held on 24.01.2020. The term of office is three years i.e. up to 24.01.2023. Since before the expiry of the term election was not conducted, the Manager then in office, who is the first plaintiff herein, approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.3864/2023, seeking permission to continue in office till a new committee is elected. This Court directed the educational authority to decide on the claim. As per order dated 17.04.2023, the District Educational Officer permitted the first plaintiff to continue as Manager till a new committee is elected.

In the meanwhile, on 14.04.2023, the first defendant SNDP Union issued a notification for election scheduling to be held on 14.05.2023. The plaintiff contended that the SNDP Yogam/Union does not hold a position of authority in the administration of the School. For challenging the notification by the Union, the present suit was filed before the vacation court, Kollam. It was later transferred to the Sub Court, Karunagappally and numbered as O.S. 13/2023.

In the meantime, the first plaintiff issued an election notification on 05.05.2023 scheduling the election to be held on 18.06.2023.

Both factions approached this court for police protection to conduct the respective elections as notified by them. This Court left open the civil disputes to be decided in the appropriate proceedings, and directed the police to ensure law and order.

Thereafter, based on the notification issued by the SNDP Union, elections were held and the members of the Managing Committee were elected. The 7th defendant in the suit is the Manager elected pursuant to the same. He filed IA 3/2023 in O.S.13/2023, from which the present appeal arises, to restrain the plaintiffs from convening the General Body and from conducting the election.

The trial court found that, the bye-law of the school stipulate that only the members of the Yogam could be members of the Sakhas (branches) and that election is to be conducted from among such members alone. Accordingly, it was held that only those residents within the territorial limits prescribed under the bye-law who simultaneously possessing membership in the SNDP Yogam, have right over the school. The trial court further noticed that the first plaintiff, who was the Manager in office from 24.01.2020, was also elected to office on a notification issued by the SNDP Union, Karunagappally. It is following the same procedure that SNDP Union issued notification for election on 14.04.2023 and held elections on 14.04.2023. Accordingly, the application for injunction was allowed.

I have heard Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel for the SNDP branch and Sri.Narendra Kumar learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

As it is evident from the main relief sought for in the suit, the main dispute is, who are the members of the general body of the school. According to the plaintiffs the SNDP sakhas (branches) Nos.181, 182 and 443 have no role in the administration of the school and that the right vests exclusively with the “Sreenarayaneeyars” residing within the territorial limits of the said branches. The branches, Union and the Yogam as such, have an inherent right over the school, is the contention. Necessarily, it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit. At the interlocutory stage the Court is only forming a prima facie opinion and deciding on the status to be maintained till disposal of the suit.

It is not in dispute that the school is functioning on the basis of an established bye-law duly approved by the Education Department in the year 1964. Clause-2 of the bye-law reads thus: -

AhImiw       181þmw  \¼À  ¢m¸\  hS F .F³.Un.]n imJm tbmK¯nsâ bpw 182þmw \¼À ¢m¸\ a²yw F .F³.Un.]n imJm tbmK¯n sâbpw 443þmw \¼À ¢m¸\ sX F .F³.Un.]n imJ tbmK¯n sâbpw AXnÀ¯n¡pÅnð Xma

kn¡pó {io\mcmbWobcpsS h Ibmbncn¡pw.

A reading of the same would suggest that the school belongs to the Sreenarayaneeyars residing within the territorial limits of the SNDP clauses 181, 182 and 443. The further provisions in the bye-law appear to suggest that, such persons must be members of the SNDP Yogam. Clause-3 of the bye-law provides that the management of the school is occupied by nine members in which three members to be elected from each Sakha (branch). Clause 3.1 provides for giving advance notice to the members included in the membership list prepared by each sakha. Clause 3.2 stipulates that, to be included in the membership list, such person should have at least temporary membership in the SNDP Yogam. All the above indicates that, to be included in the membership list, such person must be a member of the SNDP Yogam. Therefore, clause-2 referred first above has to be understood in the light of the same as, ‘Sreenarayaneers՚ within the territorial limits of the SNDP Sakhas, who are members of the SNDP Yogam. The contention of the plaintiffs to the contrary that, all the Sreenarayaneeyars residing within the territorial limits of the sakhas, irrespective of whether they are members of the SNDP Yogam or not, are entitled to be included in the membership list, is prima facie not convincing.

The next issue is with regard to convening of the General Body. The clause-6 of the bye-law provides that the Manager shall be the convenor. The contesting respondents point out that, on earlier occasions, including the election of the Managing Committee by which the present first plaintiff was elected, were also convened by D1. The said contention of the defendants is not disputed by the plaintiffs. Whether the 1st defendant was competent to convene the general body meeting, is a matter to be adjudicated finally in the suit.

Pursuant to the election notification issued by the first defendant, elections were held. The contention of the plaintiff as to who are the members of the general body, is prima facie found to be not acceptable. Therefore, the election proposed to be held by them on the basis of such membership list also cannot be permitted at this stage.

Considering the entire facts as above it is only deemed appropriate that, the managing committee elected through the election notified by the first defendant on 14.05.2023 shall be permitted to assume and continue in office till the disposal of the suit. However, it shall be subject to the final decision in the suit.

I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial court. The Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.