Allowed

Vineeth K.V. v. the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WP(C)/12795/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the denial of certificates. The court held that based on the agreement, the Academy had no role beyond certifying approved lists furnished by the Institution. Certificates must be issued within one month of the judgment despite the Academy's objections to the examination mode.

What did the court decide?

The Academy must issue certificates to the candidates based on the list furnished by the principal within one month of the receipt of this judgment.

Vineeth K.V. Vs the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 12795 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

VINEETH K.V., VENUS, MATHIL P.O, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 343.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE KERALA SANGEETHA NATAKA ACADEMY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHEMBUKKVU THRISSUR-20

¶11

2. KALABHARATHI FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN CULTURE AND HERITAGE, CAPITAL TOWER, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR-20.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.15214 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 12795 of 2012 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE THRISSUR EDITION OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.06.2011.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN HINDU DAILY ON 17.12.2010, DOWNLOADED FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.05.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.05.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION GIVEN TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 11.05.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶28

EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 05.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ONE JALAJA MADHUSUDHANAN.

¶29

EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.06.2012 ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS, KERALA STATE DATED 25.10.2011.

¶31

EXHIBIT R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.02.2012.

¶32

EXHIBIT R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.03.2012 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

WP(C).No. 12795 of 2012 (Y)

¶34

EXHIBIT	R1(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2012.
EXHIBIT	R1(G):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.07.2012.
EXHIBIT	R2(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING EXECUTED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R2(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY.
EXHIBIT	R2(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROGRAMME CONDUCTED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS TOGETHER.
EXHIBIT	R2(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS PROGRAMMES CONDUCTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PART OF THE PROGRAMME.
EXHIBIT	R2(E):	TRUE COPY OF THE CURRICULUM APPROVED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R2(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL QUESTION PAPER OF MUSIC.
EXHIBIT	R2(G):	TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL QUESTION PAPER OF DANCE.
EXHIBIT	R2(H):	TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT	R2(I):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2011 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R2(J):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2011 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R2(K):	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	R2(L):	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY//

¶35

P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶36

Msd.

¶37

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶38

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) Nos.12795 & 15214 of 2012

¶39

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

These writ petitions are relating to a common issue of

¶42

releasing certificates for completion of the programme based on

¶43

an agreement entered between Kalabharathi Foundation for Indian Culture and Heritage and the Kerala Sangeetha Nataka

¶44

Academy ( for short, the Academy) dated 11.5.2011.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.15214/2012 is filed by the Kalabharathi

¶46

Foundation for Indian Culture and Heritage (for short, the 'Institution'). W.P.(C) No.12795/2012 is filed by a student who

¶47

underwent the programme as referred in the agreement entered

¶48

into between the Academy and the Institution.

¶49

The agreement between the Academy and the

¶50

Institution is produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.15214/2012.

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos.12795 & 15214 of 2012 2

¶52

The agreement was entered into with the Institution by then Managing Committee of the Academy. The agreement provides full authority and right to the Institution to admit the students as per the schedule agreed between the parties. The entire responsibility for treating the full information about the students admitted is with the Institution. It is the responsibility of the Institution to conduct courses, trainings as well as to complete the courses as per the schedule and curriculum. However, it was agreed by the Academy would issue certificates to the successful candidates on completion of the courses. It is specifically agreed in Clause 14 as follows:

¶53

“The SECOND PARTY shall prepare and print the certificates with the consent of FIRST PARTY. The details of the enrolled candidates shall be submitted to FIRST PARTY prior to one month with the approved list, submitted by the principals of the respective institutions.”

¶54

W.P.(C) Nos.12795 & 15214 of 2012 3

¶55

As seen from Clause 14, once a list is provided by the Principals of the respective Institutions, the Academy has to

¶56

prepare and print the certificates. Thus, as seen from the agreement itself, the academic role is only to give a stamp of approval to the list furnished by the Institution by issuing certificates and no other role as far as issuing certificate is concerned. There are many clauses in the agreement governing

¶57

the relationship between the Academy and the Institution. The successor in the office of the Academy is having a case that the Institution has violated various terms and conditions in the agreement. It appears that the agreement has not been renewed thereafter.

¶58

It appears that subsequently, the Academy had taken a decision not to renew the agreement. The Academy in the counter, questions the manner in which the examination had been conducted by the Institution and submits that by the

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.12795 & 15214 of 2012 4

¶60

resolution dated 14.11.2012, it was decided not to accept the

¶61

request of the Institution to conduct the final examination.

¶62

As has been adverted in Clause 14, it would clearly

¶63

show that the role of the Academy is to give certificates once the approved list is furnished by the principal and not beyond that.

¶64

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that without prejudice to the right of the Academy to take action against the Institution for any violation, the certificates to the candidates based on the list furnished by the principal shall be issued without any delay, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues raised by the Academy are left open.

¶65

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶68

Vineeth K.V. v. the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineeth K.V. v. the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy

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

P.K.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Jayadas Vs State of Kerala

K.Sadanandan Vs N.Shekharan Nair

V.P.Ajith Vs the Tahsildar, Devikulam

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs K.W..a.

Krishnan Vs Special Tahsildar