Kerala Education Act | Aided School's Properties Cannot Be Mortgaged Without Obtaining Permission From Educational Authorities: High Court

Justice Basant Balaji observed thus:

“A duty is cast on a Manager, and the Manager should submit a statement of movable and immovable properties to the educational authorities. Without the permission of the educational authorities, the Manager cannot mortgage, sell, or lease the property.”

The Court relied on Section 6 of the Act to state that property of aided school cannot be alienated without obtaining previous written permission from an officer not below the rank of District Educational Officer. It stated that as per Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter X, District Educational Officer was the competent officer to give permission to create or make a sale, mortgage, lease, pledge, charge, or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided school. The Court observed thus:

“In view of the specific provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules 1959, mentioned above, the 5th respondent has no right to mortgage item nos.2 and 3 in Ext.P6 notice. Therefore, the act of the 5th respondent is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, and the Rules 1959 and Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside to the extent of item nos.2 and 3 of Ext.P6.”

The petitioner-manager of an aided school approached the High Court by filing a writ petition when he got to know that the respondent-owner of the school has mortgaged school properties without obtaining permission from the educational authorities under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Rules 1959.

The Court found that under the relevant laws, the Manager has the duty to give a list of movable and immovable properties to the educational authorities if they intend to mortgage the school properties. It further held that the educational authorities have to consent to the mortgage of the school properties by giving prior written permission. The Court found that the respondent has not obtained permission from the educational authorities before mortgaging the school properties.

“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.”, the Court stated.

The Court relied upon the division bench decision to Purushothama Panikker v. Mohan (1999) and stated that restriction on alienation of school properties was in public interest, necessary for maintenance and proper conduct of aided schools.

Thus, the Court relied upon Kerala Education Act, 1958 and Rules to state that the respondent cannot mortgage school properties without obtaining permission from educational authorities.

Case title: Swaroop V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 444

Case number: WP(C) No. 7988 OF 2020

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates R. Harishankar, Parvathy Nair

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader V Venugopal