ST. XAVIERS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CUTTACK vs STATE OF ODISHA

WA/968/2026
ODHC010518002026
2026:OHC:261-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No. 968 of 2026

ODHC010518002026
…. Appellant
St. Xavier’s Educational &
Charitable Trust, Cuttack

-versus-
State of Odisha and others Respondents
….

Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate
Ms. Kabita Patra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate
Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate
Mrs. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
J U D G M E N T
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of hearing: 6 August, 2026
th
Date of Judgment: 29 October, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.


1. The instant appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner
rd nd
assailing the orders dated 23 June, 2026 and 2 July, 2026 passed
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 1 of 11

in W.P.(C) No.16931 of 2026, whereby and whereunder, a direction
was passed upon the Collector, Cuttack and the S.P. (Rural), Cuttack
to look into the matter and take necessary steps to maintain law and
order and continuance of the said order till the next date.
2.
The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging
th
the proceedings of the meeting dated 12 May, 2026 by which, a
direction was passed by the Sub-Collector, Athagarh upon the rival
groups claiming rights in respect of the Trust and the Management
of the school to desist from taking the law in their own hands and
pursue their respective remedies before the competent Court, no
person or group shall create obstruction, intimidation, forceful entry,
lockout, disturbances or any situation effecting the normal
functioning of the school or disturbing public peace and tranquility,
the existing Principal, teaching staff, non-teaching staff and the
office bearers, who are presently running and administering the
school to continue in discharging their respective functions and
responsibilities in the same manner as prevailing on the date of the
said order and no forcible step shall be taken by either group to
replace or remove the present Principal, staff or administrative
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 2 of 11

functionaries of the school, except in accordance with law and
subject to the orders of the competent Court.
3. The facts so unfurled would indicate that the Saint Xavier
Group of Schools is comprised of two distinct legal entities, namely,
Saint Xavier‟s Educational Socie ty, founded in the year 1999 and
Saint Xavier‟s Educational & Charitable Trust, founded in the year
2006 and were registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
and under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 respectively. The Society
operates two schools at Barabati Stadium (Gallery No.2) and
Jaripada (Krishnamurty World School); on the other hand, the Trust
operates and governs three schools, namely, Saint Xavier‟s High
School, Nayabazar, Cuttack, Saint Xavier‟s High School, Gallery
No. 5, Barabati Stadium,
Cuttack and Saint Xavier‟s High School,
Athagarh, Cuttack.
4.
Subsequently, the amended Trust deeds were executed in
the interregnum duly registered with the Registering Authority till
the year 2026. The said reconstitution not only includes certain
persons as the board of trustees but also removed the trustees from
such status, which led the dispute between the parties and one of
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 3 of 11

such parties approached the District Judge, Cuttack with an
application under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 giving rise to the registration of ARBP No. 6 of 2026, as the
said trust deed contains an arbitration clause for adjudication of the
disputes.
5. The preliminary objection was taken on the maintainability
of the said petition, which was turned down by the District Judge
and the said order was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.12181 of 2026, which was duly admitted and an interim order to
stay the said proceedings was also passed by this Court. The said
matter is still pending before this Court. In the meantime, the dispute
further arose in relation to the management of the school, the
removal of the Principal or some of the staff, which created a ruckus
therein and several FIRs were lodged by several persons. On the
basis of the complaints lodged from several squatters, the Sub-
th
Collector, Athagarh called a meeting on 12 May, 2026 and passed a
direction as succinctly narrated in the preceding paragraph.
6. As indicated above, the appellant filed the writ petition
challenging the said direction passed by the Sub-Collector, primarily
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 4 of 11

on the ground that the dispute relates to the management and the
administration of a private educational institution and, therefore, the
Sub-Collector cannot assume a jurisdiction to interfere with the
management, the control, the administration and the affairs of the
said private educational institution. The writ petition is taken out to
challenge the said usurpation of powers by the Sub-Collector and by
the impugned orders, the Court has directed maintenance of the law
and order without passing any interim order touching upon the said
direction passed by the Sub-Collector. Though the impugned orders
are passed in the writ petition filed by the appellant, yet the appellant
felt aggrieved by not staying the operation of the said directions,
more particularly, when it relates to the continuance of the Principal,
staff and the other employees of the said private educational
institution and, therefore, we do not find any fetter put into the
appellant to maintain the instant appeal.
7. At the very outset, a plea is taken that the administration
cannot interfere with the affairs of the private educational institution,
which enjoins autonomy to a greater extent and the Single Bench
ought to have stayed the operation of the said direction which
touches upon such autonomy. It is no gainsaying that right to
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 5 of 11

education which was previously under Part-IV of the Constitution of
India as Directive Principles have now been considered as
Fundamental Rights under Part-III by introduction of Article-21A. It
is one thing to say that right of education is a fundamental right but
so far as the management and/or the administration of the private
educational institutions are concerned, it stands on different footing.
8. In recent times, the private educational institutions have
gained a greater significance and momentum for imparting quality
education and are one of the most dynamic and fast growing sectors
in the country. Though it is obligatory on the part of the State to
provide requisite educational infrastructures in every nook and
corner of the country yet, because of competing circumstances, it is
far from the reality. The private educational institutions, thus, have
acted as the catalyst to bridge the gap and provide an access to
education to the students.
9. To borrow the inspiration from the observation made by the
Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka , reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 , “the idea of an academic
degree as a „private good‟ that benefits th e individual rather than a
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 6 of 11

„public good‟ for society is now widely accepted”. Even the private
educational institution enjoins autonomy in management and
administration yet, it can be regulated by adequate measures by the
State to ensure maintenance of proper academic standard,
atmosphere and infrastructure.
10. Taking a clue from the above notion whether such private
educational institution satisfies the definition of State engrafted
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is to be ascertained
from the public law element and discharge of the public functions.
Though the primary object of those educational institutions is to
impart quality education to the students which at times, comes
within the ambit of public element yet, the distinction has to be
borne in this regard when the dispute centres on the internal
management and the administration of such educational institutions.
The moment the Court finds that such dispute comes within the folds
of a purely private dispute, there is no ambiguity to perceive that it
does not satisfy the ingredients of the public element and such
disputes are amenable to be resolved and/or determined by the civil
Courts.
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 7 of 11

11. There has been a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex
Court which laid down a proposition that Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not a proper remedy to enforce the private
law rights and such distinction has to be borne before the writ Court
exercises its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
Sushmita Basu v. Ballygunge Siksha Samity , reported in (2006) 7
SCC 680 and K.K. Saxena v. International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage , reported in (2015) 4 SCC 670 lend support
to the above proposition of law in upholding that Article 226 of the
Constitution would not lie to enforce the private law rights but the
action of the authority must be in the domain of the public law as
distinguished from private law.
12. However, in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur v. State of
Bihar , reported in (2019) 7 SCC 513 , a teacher was issued show
cause notice as he remained absent on the Independence Day as well
as the Teachers‟ Day and ultimately, the Managing Committee of the
private school dismissed him from service. A writ petition was filed
before the High Court and a pleas was taken that the same is not
maintainable, the Apex Court held even if the private educational
institution is receiving financial aid from the Government, it does
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 8 of 11

not make the Managing Committee of the school within the four
corners of the meaning of the State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
13. From the proposition of law enunciated in the above
reports, it is a consistent view that the private educational institutions
though discharging the public duties in imparting the education yet
the dispute between the teacher and the management or within the
management does not satisfy the definition of the State under Article
12 of the Constitution of India. Logically, it follows that the
Government cannot usurp the power to interfere with the
management, the administration and the affairs of the private
educational institutions nor can invade the autonomy well-nigh in
the legal parlance.
14. We are conscious that the law and order is a State subject
under Entry-1 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India but it does not loath the powers into the State to
intrude into the management and the administration of a private
educational institution under such garb. Though the impugned orders
passed in the instant appeal do not find any fault when the Single
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 9 of 11

Bench directed the State to ensure the law and order situation,
obviously that there cannot be any disruption, commotion and/or
disturbance in public peace but the Single Bench ought to have
considered that the other direction passed by the said Sub-Collector,
Athagarh in protecting the Principal and the staff of the said
institution was beyond the conceivable powers and the limits set
forth in the Constitution and should have passed an interim order in
this regard.
15. The record would further reveal that the parties have
already approached the Court by filing an application under Section
9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the matter is still
subjudice and, therefore, interference by the State into the
management is in colourable exercise of the powers so vested upon
it and it is a fit case where the Court should have granted an interim
order.
16. We, therefore, dispose of the instant writ appeal staying the
operation of the direction impugned in the writ petition, so far as it
relates to the management/administration and/or the affairs of the
educational institution is concerned and do not intend to interfere
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 10 of 11

with the order by which the direction is passed to maintain the law
and order, as we find that it is a constitutional obligation of the State
to maintain the same under Entry-1 of the State List in the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India.
17.
We, therefore, request the Single Bench to take up the writ
petition by giving some priority, as it relates to the education and/or
running of the educational institution and endeavour shall be shown
to dispose of the same at the earliest.
I agree.
(Chittaranjan Dash) (Harish Tandon)
Judge Chief Justice










S. Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Nov-2026 16:08:45
W.A. No.968 of 2026 Page 11 of 11