Dismissed

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021RP/576/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court unanimously dismissed the review petition. It held that a positive direction for the grant of the Educational Certificate under Article 226 is impermissible, as the only available relief was to direct consideration of the application, which was already granted. The new timeline set by the respondent was not sufficient grounds for review.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed; no further relief was granted.

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust, Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/17TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 576 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12550/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶8

V.N.PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,

¶9

A2, JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY, SALES TAX OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE - V. ANIL KUMAR.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI S.VINOD BHAT

¶11

MS.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

2 DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011.

¶16

3 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR 680 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶17

R.P.No.576/2021

¶18

:-2-:

¶19

4 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 077, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶20

5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEAR UDYOG BHAVAN METRO STATION, MOULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011

¶21

R1 & R2 BY SRI. JACOB SIMON, GOVT.PLEADER R3 BY SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

¶22

R4 BY SRI TITUS MANI R5 BY SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P.No.576/2021

:-3-:

T.R.RAVI, J.

Review Petition No.576 of 2021 in

¶28

W.P.(C) 12550 of 2021

¶29

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2021

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated

¶32

27.08.2021, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P40 and P41 in accordance with law within three weeks

¶33

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The prayer in the review petition is to review the judgment and to

¶34

grant relief No.ii prayed for in the writ petition. Relief No.ii

¶35

reads thus;

¶36

“ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the 1^st respondent to grant EC at the earliest, within a time frame set by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶37

R.P.No.576/2021

¶38

:-4-:

¶39

This Court in the judgment has, after narrating the previous judgments and directions issued by this Court by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed consideration of the request made by the petitioner for EC for the academic year 2022-23. Such an option was given to the petitioner earlier by a learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 12.10.2020 in W.P.(C)Nos.27266 and 29098/2019. In fact, Exts.P40 and P41 were preferred by the petitioner pursuant

¶40

to an interim order dated 07.07.2021 issued by this Court in the above writ petition. The relief that can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court can only be to direct consideration of the request for EC, and that relief has been granted. A positive direction in the nature prayed for in prayer (ii) cannot be granted. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in not granting relief No.ii in the writ petition.

¶41

One of the reasons stated for seeking the review is

¶42

R.P.No.576/2021

¶43

:-5-:

¶44

that the 4^th respondent has set certain time lines and hence the judgment requires a review. Even if on that basis, a review has to be made, it would be with regard to the timeframe that has been stated by this Court in the judgment for consideration of the grant of EC. However, the prayer of the review petitioner is for a review granting prayer No.ii in the writ petition. It is well settled that a review cannot be a substitute for an appeal and it can be exercised only when the grounds specified in the Code of Civil Procedure exist. True, the time line set by the 4^th respondent was not a fact that was available before this Court or within the knowledge of the parties, at the time of issuance of the judgment. However, that fact alone would not justify the grant of t he prayer which has been now made in the review petition. Even if the time line set by the 4^th respondent is to be considered as a discovery of a new or main matter of evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the

¶45

R.P.No.576/2021

¶46

:-6-:

¶47

petitioner, that would not be a reason for exercising the power of review to modify the judgment by granting prayer No.ii. As already stated, prayer No.ii as such cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the only relief that can be granted is a direction to consider the request made by the petitioner.

¶48

The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

dsn

R.P.No.576/2021

:-7-:

APPENDIX OF RP 576/2021

¶56

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶57

Annexure 1 JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2021 IN WPC NO. 12550/2021 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Annexure 2 COPY OF THE PUBLICATION MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THEIR WEBSITE (RELEVANT PAGE). Annexure 3 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. VNPT/H&FWD/EC/007/2021 DATED 30.07.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust, 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

Binson Babu Vs Abraham John (Deleted)

Beena C.A. (P.P.O.No.F 51226), Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS

Bindhu Vs Prakashan

M/S.Wittur Elevator Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench

Abdulla Vs Sharafudheen T.K.

Prasanth Vs Shibi Mathew