Partly allowed

Sony Issac v. the Secretary to Government

Kerala HC1 Jun 2017WP(C)/17071/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, noting the petitioners were absent and that the substantive issue regarding the legality of the educational institutions was already the subject of a previous judgment, directed the appropriate government authorities to consider pending representations, afford an opportunity of hearing, and issue orders while adhering to prior single judge directions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd and 5th Respondents to consider the relevant representations, afford an opportunity of being heard, and pass orders expeditiously in accordance with prior single judge directions.

Sony Issac Vs the Secretary to Government — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 17071 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SONY ISSAC, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SUNNY ISSAC, SONY VILASAM, KATTUMKAL P.O., VEMBALA.

¶8

2. JOHN V.C, S/O.LATE V.J.CHACKO, VALANCHARIL, MALLAPPALLY (WEST) P.O., MALLAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ETC GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, KOTTAYAM, OPP. MALAYALA MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.

¶14

4. MANAGING DIRECTOR/PROPRIETOR,

¶15

MASANIAMMAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING, PUTHIYIDAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 502.

¶16

5. DIRECTOR,

¶17

VIGILANCE, DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

6. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AICTE, AICTE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL R,R BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR R-R3 BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) R BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,SC, AICTE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 17071 of 2014 (H)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED ON 22.6.13 IN MANGALAM DAILY.

¶26

P2TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN CHANDRIKA DAILY DT. 11.9.13.

¶27

P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY 1ST PETITION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION DT. 22.9.13.

¶28

P4TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILYT DT.16.6.14.

¶29

P5TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT. 18.6.14.

¶30

P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.19.6.14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 19.6.14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 16.09.12.

¶33

P8(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLIES OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 22.11.13.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶37

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶38

-----------------------------------------------W.P.C.No.17071 of 2014

¶39

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2017

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents institutions have no approval from the AICTE or from the Government of Kerala and that they are being run illegally without having any infrastructural or instructional facilities. The petitioners say that they had preferred Exts.P3 and P6 representations before the 2^nd respondent, Director of Techincal Education and Ext.P7 representation before 5^th respondent, Director of Vigilance. The petitioner prays that these representations may directed to be considered by the said respondents.

¶42

When this matter was taken up today, there was no representation for petitioners nor were they present. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6.

¶43

I notice that the singular allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 3 and 4 are acting illegally without the requisite permissions and clearances from the authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent points out that

¶44

W.P.C.No.17071/2014

¶45

¶46

these issues had already been considered by this Court in a judgment delivered on 13.12.2016 in W.P.C.No.19782 of 2015. The directions contained in the said judgment are as under:

¶47

“ i) The petitioners in the above writ petitions shall give the list of students and the courses which they have attended with all particulars, and whose names appear in the list furnished prior to 30/08/2014, to the University within a period of one month from today.

¶48

ii) On receipt of the same, University shall make alternate arrangements for the continued study of such candidates and if they have completed the course, arrangements shall be made for such students to write the examinations in any of the recognized colleges in the State of Karnataka.

¶49

iii) If it is not possible for the University to continue the course or to permit the students to write the examinations, the University shall compensate such students by paying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) each.

¶50

iv) The benefit of the order shall be available only to candidates who are petitioners in any of the above cases.”

¶51

Even though I notice that such directions have been issued by this Court, the petitioners had not prayed for any directions in terms of such judgment nor have they framed reliefs in such manner. All that they want is that the Director of

¶52

W.P.C.No.17071/2014

¶53

¶54

Technical Education and the Director of Vigilance consider and pass orders on their representations. I do not think that there is any legal impediment in those respondents taking up the representations and disposing it, if it has not been done already.

¶55

In such circumstances and noticing the directions of the learned single judge as extracted above, I direct 2^nd respondent to take up Exts.P3 and P6 representations and 5^th respondent to take up Ext.P7 representation, if they are pending before them, consider it and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to respondents 3 and 4, as expeditiously as possible in terms of the applicable Statutes and Rules. While making such a consideration the directions of the learned single judge in W.P.C.No.19782/2015 extracted above shall be adverted to specifically and any orders to be issued will also be, as far as possible, in terms of directions contained therein.

¶56

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶57

TRUE COPY

¶58

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶59

Sony Issac v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sony Issac v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Autobahn Trucking Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

The Kumbla Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

P.K.Sajeena Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar.P.v Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

The General Manager & Inspector of N.S.S.Schools Vs State of Kerala

Valsala.K.P Vs Kerala Public Service Commission