Disposed

The Chairman, Noorul Islam Trust v. Rajeev Sadanandan

Kerala HC5 Mar 2021Con.Case(C)/2306/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed contempt petition for non-compliance of directives in W.P.(C) 35690/2018. Court found that Government order dated 11.12.2018 complied with directions for year 2018-19. Petition closed; subsequent years left open.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed as Government order dated 11.12.2018 complied with directions for 2018-19. Questions for subsequent years left open.

The Chairman, Noorul Islam Trust Vs Rajeev Sadanandan — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.2306 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 35690/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35690/2018(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

THE CHAIRMAN, NOORUL ISLAM TRUST A-AZHAR CAMPUS, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O., THODUPUZHA

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4:

¶11

1 RAJEEV SADANANDAN

¶12

AGED 59 YEARS FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶13

2 DR. REMLA BEEVI, A.,

¶14

AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER , DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶15

3 MR. SHAJI SENADHIPAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

¶16

R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R3 BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Con.Case(C).No.2306 OF 2018

IN WP(C). 35690/2018

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5^th day of March 2021

¶23

This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 2.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.35690/2018 are not complied with.

¶24

However, today when the matter is taken up, learned Government Pleader submitted that the directions issued by this Court in regard to grant of NOC including the petitioner in the common admission process, was complied with for the year 2018-2019, which alone was the direction contained in the judgment and therefore, in effect, the judgment of this Court was complied with.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.P.M.Saneer, learned Special Government Pleader Sri.M.A.Asif for respondent Nos.1 & 2, learned counsel Smt.Shameena Slahudheen for respondent No.3 and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶26

The directions and the observations in the judgment are as follows:

¶27

“20. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader firmly stood by the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, that the Government is concerned with the present state of affairs of the students

¶28

Con.Case(C).No.2306 OF 2018

¶29

¶30

IN WP(C). 35690/2018

¶31

who pass out who are either unemployed or underemployed, and also the responsibility of the Government to take over the loans provided to such students, which are unable to be repaid consequent to the economic weakness of such students or their families. It is also pointed out that, while issuing a No Objection Certificate, the Government is at liberty to evaluate such aspects and then take a decision in accordance with law.

¶32

On an appreciation of the rival submissions, I am of the considered opinion that, since the institution has got sufficient infrastructural and other facilities, the Government is duty bound to issue NOC to the institution. Of course, the students and their families are entitled to have their own evaluation before joining such a college. The Government is also at liberty to apprise the situations that are prevailing consequent to under-employment and unemployment and also the burden that is left with the Government to take over the debt burden. However, merely apprehending that the students who joined the course will be under-employed or unemployed and there will be debt traps, petitioner, who has invested money to conduct the college and secured necessary affiliation from the statutory authorities, cannot be deprived of NOC by the State Government.

¶33

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to issue NOC to the educational agency for the D.Pharm Course for the ensuing year 2018-19 and include the educational agency/institution in the Prospectus and also include them in the Centralized Allotment Process for the ensuing year 2018-19. The educational agency is also permitted to provide admission to 50% of the students for the year 2018-2019.

¶34

The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent. ”

¶35

5. Having considered the rival submissions and taking note of the fact

¶36

that the State Government has issued an order dated 11.12.2018 complying

¶37

Con.Case(C).No.2306 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

IN WP(C). 35690/2018

¶40

the directions issued by this Court in regard to the academic year 2018-2019, which alone was the direction, I do not think anything survives to be considered in the contempt petition.

¶41

In that view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed, however all

¶42

other questions with respect to the subsequent years are left open.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

Con.Case(C).No.2306 OF 2018

IN WP(C). 35690/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 35690/2018 DATED 2.11.2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 27.9.2018 OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 24132/2018 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2018

The Chairman, Noorul Islam Trust v. Rajeev Sadanandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman, Noorul Islam Trust v. Rajeev Sadanandan

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

Ettuthengil Ismail Vs the Secretary

The Principal, St. Peter'S College Vs Krishnadev Manoj

K.A. Geevarghese Vs T.G. Sen

S.S. Jayaraj Vs M.Ashraf

Sreejith S. Vs a.Shajahan

Jameela Razak, Vs Rajasree P. Nair