Allowed

Eldhose Koshy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2018WP(C)/1817/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of tuition fees as per the final Human Rights Commission order, which was not successfully challenged in prior writ proceedings. The college was directed to pay the amount within a month.

What did the court decide?

Directed to disburse Rs. 1,06,900/- less Rs. 10,000/- processing fees to the petitioner within one month. Writ petition allowed.

Eldhose Koshy Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1817 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ELDHOSE KOSHY AGED 21 YEARS, S/O KOSHY P.G, PALLATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANNUR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.,PIN.689514

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.1

¶11

2. THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695014

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695014

¶13

4. THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ADOOR, MANAKKALA PO, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.PIN.691551

¶14

R2-4 BY SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, IHRD R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1817 of 2018 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITION --------	ER(S)' ------	EXHIBITS: ----------
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.6.2015 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE TUITION FEE OF RS.1,06,900/- ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ADOOR.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ADMISSION TO ENGINEERING DEGREE COURSES FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-16
EXHIBIT	P3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SCHOOL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ADMITTED FOR B.SC MRT COURSE.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2015 FILED THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, IHRD.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.11.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ADOOR.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.1.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2016 OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN H R M P NO.337/2016
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13731 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2017 IN R.P NO.992 OF 2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.10.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ADOOR.
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.12.2017 FILED BY THE PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING ADOOR BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶19

WP(C).No. 1817 of 2018 (B)

¶20

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7.12.2017 OF THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXHIBIT R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ADMISSION TO B.TECH MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT IN THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ADOOR UNDER NRI QUOTA FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 19.5.2015

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No. 1817 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

¶31

following reliefs:-

¶32

“(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

¶33

writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to

¶34

disburse the amount of tuition fee paid by the petitioner, as

¶35

evident from Exhibit P2 coming to Rs.1,06,900/- after

¶36

deducting Rs.10,000/- by way of precessing charges

¶37

forthwith along with 9% interest on the said amount from

¶38

August, 2015 till the date of payment

¶39

(ii) Declare that the is entitled for refund of the amount of

¶40

tuition fee paid by the petitioner, as evident from Exhibit P2

¶41

coming to Rs.106900/- after deducting Rs.10,000/- by way

¶42

of processing charges; forthwith; “

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 1817 of 2018

¶44

¶45

Apparently, the rights of the petitioner was crystallized

¶46

as per Ext.P7 order passed by the Human Right Commission dated

¶47

25.5.2016, whereby, it was held that petitioner is entitled to get

¶48

refund of the entire course fee remitted less an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The said order of the Human Rights Commission was challenged before this Court in WP(C)No.13731/2017 and the Division Bench of this Court has rendered Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.4.2017 dismissing the challenge of the 4^th respondent herein. A

¶49

review was filed against Ext.P8 judgment, which was dismissed as per Ext.P9 order. It is clear from Ext.P8 judgment and Ext.P9 order that the relief seeking to quash the order passed by the Human Right Commission was declined. In my considered opinion

¶50

whatever relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition was declined by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, then the issue is clearly hit by res judicata as is propounded in Explanation V to Section 11

¶51

of the CPC. By this time it is a well settled proposition of law that

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 1817 of 2018

¶53

¶54

the principles of res judicata would apply to a proceeding in a writ petition.

¶55

However, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent

¶56

submitted that, even if Ext.P8 judgment is rendered by this Court, the same was rendered on the ground that there was considerable

¶57

delay in challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Human Right Commission. In my considered opinion it is clearly evident from Ext.P8 that, whatever relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition was declined in view of the dismissal of the writ petition without reservation of any rights to the petitioner to re-agitate the issue again in a subsequent writ petition. Any how, petitioner has preffered a review against the said judgment, which was also dismissed. Therefore, in my considered opinion proceeding concluded and the order passed by the Human Rights Commission

¶58

has become final and conclusive, which is entitled to be executed

¶59

by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶60

W.P.(C) No. 1817 of 2018

¶61

¶62

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶63

Government Pleader as well as learned counsel appearing for 4^th

¶64

respondent in extenso, I am of the considered opinion that, for the reasons aforesaid petitioner is entitled to get the relief as is sought

¶65

for in the writ petition.

¶66

There will be a direction to the 4^th respondent to

¶67

disburse the amount due to the petitioner as is contemplated in

¶68

Ext.P7 order passed by the Human Rights Commission, at the

¶69

earliest possible, and at any rate, within a month from the date of

¶70

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶71

Writ petition will stand allowed.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶74

dlk/21/2/

Eldhose Koshy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eldhose Koshy 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

Shajeer Vs Mr. Rajesh Raveendran, Custodian of Vested Forests, Palakkad

M.M.Mathew Vs Adv. Manjeri S. Sunder Raj

Mangalananda Vs Punnapra South Grama Panchayath

Arunkumar Vs Shri.Dr.a.Kowsingan IAS

K.Rajan Vs the Branch Manager, Canara Bank

Xenon Communications Vs the Divisional Engineer