- (1.) THE petitioner challenges the decision contained in Ext. P3 whereby the first respondent, Director of Public Instruction, stated that the petitioner has to approach the civil court to decide any issue in respect of the election of the Managing Body of the Boys Higher Secondary School, (B. H. H. S) Karunagappally and C. S. Subramanyam Potti Memorial Girls Higher Secondary School (C. S. S. P. M. G. H. S.) Karunagappally. 2. It appears that there was a bifurcation of an existing school under a management sometime before 1973 and this has resulted in certain amendments being sought for to the then existing bye-laws in exercise of the statutory authority in that regard. Ext. R5 (c) order dated 13-11-1973 was issued by the Regional Deputy Director having jurisdiction in the matter over the school. By that order, in exercise of power under Rule 2 of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules, the constitution of Girls and Boys High School, Karunagappally was approved. The Manager was requested to re-print the constitution quoting this order as authority and incorporating the approved amendments also therein. Therefore, in so far as the educational authorities are concerned, there is an approved bye-law as regards the two schools in question. Ext. P2, which is stated to be a petition submitted by the petitioner before the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, contains the averments to the effect, among other things, that the residents of Karunagappally, Mainagappally, K. S. Puram, Thodiyoor, Thazhava, Thevallakkara and Panmana villages are to select the managing committee of the schools in terms of the bye-laws. The petitioner filed O. P. No. 23529/2002 as is evident from Ext. P1. The election to the Managing Committee was held on 14-12-2002 in the presence of an Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court. Therefore, the prayer is to conduct election having become infructuous. This Court by Ext. P1 judgment dated 27-3-2003 held that various disputes regarding the admission of members, preparation of the electoral roll etc. raised by the writ petitioner are not matters of this Court to decide under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was relegated to work out his remedy elsewhere. For this purpose, the contentions of both sides were kept open, which are to be agitated before the "appropriate forum". 3. The crux of the submissions made by Senior Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner challenging the decision contained in Ext. P3 is that the Director of Public Instruction was not justified in taking the view that the petitioner has to approach the civil court to decide the issue. In support of this contention, the learned Senior counsel submits before this Court that the issue to decide by an appropriate forum, which obviously, did not mean that the appropriate forum was a civil court under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. In this view of the matter, he urges that the civil court is not the appropriate forum and Ext. P3 to that extent will have to be quashed and the parties may be relegated to the appropriate authority going by the statutes including the Government for the purpose of resolution of the disputes between the parties relating to the election as noticed above. 4. Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules relates to the Management of Private schools. Rule 2 thereof provides the requirement of rules approved by the Director which should prescribe among other things, (a) the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out its functions relating to the management of the institutions and (b) the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed, the conditions and tenure of their office and their duties and powers with respect to the management of the institution. This means that the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out functions of the management and the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed are to be regulated by the Director and such regulations will have to be in the form of approved rules issued by the Director. This practice had abundantly clear that any dispute as to the title of the proprietary body or as to whether the election of the managing body has been held in accordance with the rules approved by the Director are not matters over which the statutory authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules can adjudicate upon and decide. Bereft of any specific expressed conferment of such power, any assumption of such power without any statutory authority, will, in my considered view, undermined the very concept of judicial review as is understood under the constitutional context and provide for by the hierarchy of authorities in the judiciary. The proprietorship as well as whether an election has been conducted in accordance with the approved bye-laws, particularly on the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be decided without a complete and thorough adjudication after adverting to and considering the rival pleadings, evidences etc. This is more so because, even the petitioners case is that the inclusion of certain persons as members and the conduct of election was not in accordance with bye-laws, unlike certain other statutes, Kerala Education Act and Rules do not provide for an adjudication of such disputes. Nor does it provide for a forum to adjudicate such dispute. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the term "appropriate forum" used in Ext. P1 judgment is obviously that the forum has to be the one appropriate in accordance with law. The said issue has been specifically raised in the writ petition. I answer by holding that any dispute as to the election, which is completed on 14/12/2002, can be agitated only before the competent civil court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over the matter. This is because, there is apparently no other statutory authority authorised to decide the said dispute. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Ext. P3 cannot be found fault with. In the result, this writ petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.;