Disposed

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2009WP(C)/14460/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for a No Objection Certificate to start a B.Sc Nursing course. The previous rejection was deemed set aside by treating the application as pending since the date of the prior order, requiring it to be considered without being hampered by the previous refusal. Reporting None.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh application; deemed pending since date of previous rejection for consideration untrammeled by prior refusal.

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 14460 of 2009(B) -----------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------

¶8

DR.V.V. PYARELAL, DIRECTOR, KVM TRUST, POST BOX - 30. CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE KERALA NURSES & MIDWIVES COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶14

3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN R2 BY ADV. MR.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC R3 BY ADV. MR. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, UTY OF KERALA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

V.GIRI, J.

¶19

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶20

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2009.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader. By consent of parties, the writ petition has been taken up for disposal.

¶23

The petitioner is stated to be a trust running courses in B.Sc Nursing, General Nursing and Auxiliary Nursing and Midwives. It is claimed to be running a hospital with 300 bed facility. The basic qualification required for joining the course B.Sc Nursing and General Nursing is stated to be the same though the tenure is different.

¶24

The petitioner applied for No Objection Certificate from the Government for starting Post Basic B.Sc Nursing course. The Government issued the No Objection Certificate, subject to the condition that the petitioner should obtain affiliation from the concerned University and also separate order from the Registrar of the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council,

¶25

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner then applied to the University for affiliation. University is yet to take a decision on the application for affiliation, though an inspection has been conducted, according to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P3 and the petitioner had remitted the requisite fee. The petitioner sought for a re-validation of the NOC and thereafter had approached this court in W.P.(C)No.15207/06, which was disposed of under Ext.P4 judgment, requiring the 1^st respondent that viz., State, to consider and pass orders on the said application. By Ext.P5 the petitioner was informed that several nursing colleges in the Government sector and in the private sector are already functioning; that the Government is not in a position to consider the petitioner's request for revalidation of the No Objection Certificate for starting the course in B.Sc Nursing. The petitioner's request was therefore, rejected. Ext.P5 order is dated 14.8.2006.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

The petitioner submits that later it came to light that other applications for starting B.Sc. Nursing course by other institutions are being dealt with by the Government. This is substantiated by Ext.P8 communication issued by the 2^nd respondent obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Hence the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the same.

¶32

ii) Issue a writ declaring that the rejection of Ext.P3 application for the reasons stated in Ext.P5 is illegal and unjust as is evident from the subsequent conduct of the respondents and as evident from Ext.P6.

¶33

iii) Issue a writ declaring that the processing of application without any further study as stated in Ext.P5 by itself will invalidate Ext.P5 which will necessitate the consequential direction to revalidate the application of the petitioner by issuing the NOC to start the post

¶34

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶35

:: 4 ::

¶36

basic B.Sc Nursing as applied by the petitioner.

¶37

iv) Pass such other order or direction as this court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶38

The following order was passed on

¶39

27.5.2009.

¶40

“Prima facie, I am of the view that there is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court challenging Ext.P5 communication dated 14.8.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 indicating that the Govt. is not in a position to consider the application by the petitioner for starting B.Sc Nursing College as such, was accepted by the petitioner, as correct, but it was proved otherwise later.

¶41

Govt. shall file an affidavit indicating whether a detailed study as indicated in Ext.P5 was actually conducted or not. University shall also file an affidavit. Post after four weeks.”

¶42

Pursuant thereto, what has been filed is

¶43

only a statement on behalf of the 1^st respondent and

¶44

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶45

not an affidavit. When there was a direction by the court to a competent authority to file an affidavit, what is expected is an affidavit and not a statement.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of the case, paying heed to the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Pleader, I have taken note of the statement.

¶47

It is now clear from the statement that subsequent to Ext.P5, the Government has apparently been considering applications from institutions for granting No Objection Certificates for B.Sc Nursing courses. It is not clear whether there is a change of policy giving adequate opportunity to those who had applied earlier or whether the Government had liberalised its policy. But, it is clear that applications received from other sources are being considered. There is no reason why the application received from the petitioner should not be considered.

¶48

W.P.(C).No.14460 of 2009

¶49

:: 6 ::

¶50

I would have normally directed, as already directed in Ext.P4 judgment, to re-validate the NOC de hors Ext.P5. But by passage of time, it is only appropriate that the petitioner files a fresh application. Taking note of the stand taken by the Government in the statement, the said application shall be deemed to be pending on the date of Ext.P5 and the Government shall deal with the same in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P4 untrammelled by the decision taken in Ext.P5. It shall be considered along with any other application of a similar nature and dealt with, in accordance with law.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/- (V.GIRI)

¶53

sk/

¶54

//true copy//

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.v.v.Pyarelal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreenesh Vs Santhosh.a.G.& Another

C.S.Prakash Vs the R.T.a., Idukki

Salbia K.Salam Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Indian Haj Umrah Group Association Vs Anil Trigunayat

Mejo Nirappel Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ibrahim Khaleel Vs the District Collector,Kasargod