Disposed

Nidhin George v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020WP(C)/18086/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to respondent Board of Adjudication of Students Grievances to consider and dispose of a complaint at earliest. Bench declined to adjudicate maintainability but directed Board to consider complaint and affords petitioner hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directs the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Ext.P5 complaint within two months after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard physically or via video conferencing.

Nidhin George Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18086 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NIDHIN GEORGE, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, ELANTHIKKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 4TH SEMESTER BBA STUDENT, SNGIST ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MANAKKAPPADY, KARUMALLOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PIN 686 560

¶11

2 THE BOARD OF ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VICE CHANCELLOR.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL, SNGIST ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MANAKKAPPADY, KARUMALLOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM PIN 683511

¶13

R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 18086/20

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks that his complaint,

¶19

namely Ext.P5, preferred before the 2 nd respondent-Board of Adjudication of Students Grievances, be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶20

2. Sri.Asok M. Cherian, learned Standing

¶21

Counsel for the University, initially submitted that he has his own doubt as to whether Ext.P5 can be considered because, the petitioner is no longer a student of any of the colleges affiliated to the University. He says that, going by Chapter XXVII of the Statute of the Mahatma Gandhi University, the complaint of only a student of any of the colleges affiliated to the University can be considered by the 2 nd respondent. He, however, submitted that there is no legal impediment in the competent Authority considering Ext.P5, but prayed that this Court may not

¶22

¶23

WPC 18086/20

¶24

speak affirmatively on the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief, including on the maintainability of the same and leave it to

¶25

the competent Authority to take a decision thereon as per law.

¶26

3. In reply, Sri.M.Shaju Purushothaman,

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Ext.P5 complaint has been preferred in connection with an incident that happened when his client was a student of a college affiliated to the University. He contends that, therefore, Ext.P5 is maintainable.

¶28

4. When I hear the learned counsel for

¶29

the parties as afore, I am certainly firm in my mind that this Court will not be justified in considering the merits of Ext.P5 or as to whether it is maintainable. These are issues

¶30

that have to be considered by the 2 nd

¶31

respondent appropriately after hearing the petitioner also.

¶32

WPC 18086/20

¶33

¶34

5. In the afore circumstances and

¶35

without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of the rival parties, I direct the 2 nd respondent to take up Ext.P5 complaint of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him - either physically or through video conferencing - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶36

judgment .

¶37

6. I reiteratingly clarify that I have

¶38

not considered the maintainability of Ext.P5

¶39

complaint and it will be up to the 2 nd respondent to take an appropriate decision

¶40

thereon as per law.

¶41

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 18086/20

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER AND CONDUCT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT 15-1-2020

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE DT 15-12020

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCE DT 1-3-2020

¶53

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR READMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 25-08-2020

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCES DT. 25-08-2020

Nidhin George v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidhin George v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nicy George Vs the State of Kerala

K.R.Sunil Dutt Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Shamseer M.F. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Giji Tess Gregory Vs the State of Kerala

Sufaira Shamsudeen, Vs the State of Kerala

Sooraj P.R. Vs State of Kerala