Allowed

Bindu John v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/6790/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to set aside the allocation of canteen rights to a third party and requested temporary permission. The Court directed respondents to permit the petitioner to run the canteen until 15.12.2016, subject to health inspections.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the canteen till 15.12.2016, subject to health inspections.

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6790 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMT.BINDU JOHN, W/O.JOHN, VAZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINCUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688504.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY, CUSAT P.O., THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682021.

¶11

2. THE PRINCIPAL, COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PULINCUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688504.

¶12

3. SMT.REENA BABU, W/O.BABU, PATHINANCHILCHIRAYIL, KANNADY PATHINANCHIL P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-683504.

¶13

4. THE CANTEEN COMMITTEE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PULINCUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688504, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SC R1,R2 & R4 BY ADV.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC,

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 6790 of 2016 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.5-2-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR TO THE PETITIONER.
P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH SCHEDULE OF RATES.
P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.3-2-16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE TENDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.9-2-16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 10.8.16.
P8	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.8.16.
P9	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 26.8.2016.
P10	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6.9.2016 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
P11	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6.9.2016 SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL.
RES	PONDE	NT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.R2A: TRUE COPY	OF THE CONTRACT	EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER
WITH THE C	OLLEGE IN THE YE	AR 2008.
EXT.R2B: TRUE COPY	OF THE COMPLAINT	DATED 27.7.2015.
EXT.R2C: TRUE COPY	OF THE COMPLAINT	DATED 18.12.2015.
EXT.R2D: TRUE COPY	OF THE COMPLAINT	DATED 7.8.2015.
EXT.R2E: TRUE COPY	OF THE COMPLAINT	DATED 24.7.2015.

¶22

--2--

¶23

--2--

¶24

WP(C).No. 6790 of 2016 (W)

¶25

EXT.R2F: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.1.2016. EXT.R2G: TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE CANTEEN COMMITTEE HELD ON 12.1.2016. EXT.R2H: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.8.2016 OF THE JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶26

mbr/

¶27

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.6790 of 2016

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

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

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶33

“ (i) To call for the records leading to the decision of the 2^nd respondent/Canteen Committee in the matter of assigning the right to conduct the canteen for the years 2016-2018 and set aside the decision if any by which the right has been assigned to the 3^rd respondent; And

¶34

(ii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶35

Even though very many contentions are raised

¶36

by the petitioner, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner will be satisfied if the petitioner is permitted to run the canteen till 15.12.2016. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 did not make any serious objections with respect to the same, therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to

¶37

W.P.(C)No.6790 of 2016 2

¶38

permit the petitioner to continue the canteen upto 15.12.2016. However, I make it clear, the health

¶39

authorities will be at liberty to inspect the hygiene and cleanliness of the canteen, during the period petitioner runs the canteen. I also make it clear, the non compliance of the necessary conditions by the petitioner will not be an enabling circumstance for the health authority or any other authority to proceed against the principal.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶42

rmm/11/11/2016

¶43

[ True copy] P.A. to Judge

Bindu John v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu John v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

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

M/S.Chalayyam Travels and Transports Vs Government of India

Antony @ Antony Burnad Vs State of Kerala

T.I.Alikunju Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Ajitha Niraimathy Vs the District Collector