Disposed

M.K.Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2022WP(C)/31934/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2022 concerning student exploitation by educational consultants and issue orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 17.08.2022 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

M.K.Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31934 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M.K.THOMAS,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. K.T. THOMAS, PREMNIVASIL,
PERINCHERIKUNNU, NELLIKAL, KUZHIMATTOM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 533.

¶9

BY ADVS.
GEORGE SEBASTIAN
ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶12

2THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶13

SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR. G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2022

¶19

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶20

On 10.10.2022, we passed the following order:

¶21

“Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶22

“To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P4 representation at the earliest, within a time frame to be fixed by the Hon'ble Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”

¶23

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:-

¶24

a) According to the petitioner, he is a public spirited citizen, who had espoused the cause of Malayalee Students, who are studying and aspiring to study various professional courses in the neighbouring States. Petitioner has filed W. P. (C) No. 12618 of 2010, in which he had stated that students from Kerala, who are studying for courses like Nursing and Para Medicine, are being exploited and harassed by colleges through educational consultants. It was urged in the writ petition that the State of Kerala should provide necessary information with respect to the colleges, their fees structure and the students have to be protected from hardships, exploitation and harassment.

¶25

b) Petitioner has submitted that Ext. P2 report dated 25.11.2010 was filed in the said writ petition by the

¶26

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶27

¶28

Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, the 1^st respondent herein, specifically stating that the issues raised by the petitioner are of serious nature, and the Government is taking speedy steps for making a separate legislation for regulating and controlling the activities of the educational consultancy services within the State of Kerala. Recording the said report, the writ petition was closed by Ext. P3 judgment dated 20.11.2013. c) Petitioner has further submitted that as no steps were taken in pursuance of Ext. P3 judgment, despite the lapse of a long time, petitioner had again preferred Ext. P4 representation dated 17.08.2022 before the Government. The Government ought to have honoured the submission made before this Court. The exploitation and harassment of the students through educational consultancies in the State of Kerala have increased manifold. Therefore, the limited relief sought in this writ petition is for a direction to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1^st respondent, to consider Ext. P4 representation dated 17.08.2022 and to take a decision thereon.

¶29

Ext. P4 representation dated 17.08.2022, addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Thiruvananthapuram, reads as under:-

¶30

“From

¶31

M. K. Thomas, aged 53 years, S/o. K.T. Thomas, Premnivasil, Perincherikunnu, Nellikal, Kuzhimattom, Kottayam – 686 533.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶33

¶34

¶35

The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 001.

¶36

Sir,

¶37

I was the president of the Association of Malayalee Students Studying in Karnataka (AMSSK), which is a registered association. The Malayalee students, studying in neighboring states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu etc. for various courses like Nursing and Para medical are being exploited and harassed by college managements and educational consultants. Correct information regarding the colleges, courses offered by various colleges and fees structures are not provided by the managements, which result in hardships, harassment and exploitation of students. Other state managements with the help of educational consultants imposes huge fees for various courses. In such a situation, I had preferred representations to the Hon'ble Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Hon'ble Secretary of the Higher Education Department of the Government of Kerala. True copy of the representation dated 11.3.2010 submitted before the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala is produced herewith and marked as Annexure:1 . True copy of the representation dated 11.3.2010 submitted before the Higher Education Secretary, Government of Kerala is produced herewith and marked as Annexure:2 .

¶38

Since there was no action on the representations, I preferred W.P.(C) No. 12618/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala seeking intervention in this matter. A report was submitted by the Higher Education Department before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the said case. True copy of the report dated 25.11.2010 submitted by the Higher Education Secretary, Government of Kerala before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 12618/2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure:3 . It was stated in the report that the issues raised in the writ petition are of serious nature. Considering the said report, the Hon'ble High Court disposed the writ petition by placing the report on record and by a direction that steps already taken by the department has to be attended to as expeditiously as possible. True copy of the judgment dated 20.11.2013 in W.P.(C) 12618/2010

¶39

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶40

¶41

is produced herewith and marked as Annexure:4 .

¶42

Despite the filing of the report and despite specific direction by the Hon'ble High Court, no steps have been taken by the Government of Kerala in pursuance of the report and the judgment. Large scale exploitation and harassment of the students are being continued in neighboring states like Karnataka, Andrapradesh and Tamilnadu etc. The children and their parents are duped by the colleges as well as educational consultants. The stand taken by the government of Kerala before the Hon'ble High Court that the matter is of serious concern is not being backed up by concrete steps. Therefore it is highly necessary to take further steps in pursuance of Annexure - 3 report and Annexure - 4 judgment immediately.

¶43

Therefore I humbly pray that immediate steps may be taken in pursuance of Annexure: 3 and Annexure: 4 for the purpose of preventing exploitation and harassment of Malayalee students studying for various professional courses in neighboring states like Karnataka, Andrapradesh, Tamil Nadu etc for Nursing and Para medical courses. 17.08.2022

¶44

Yours faithfully, Sd/M. K. Mohandas”

¶45

Material on record discloses that earlier, when the petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 12618 of 2010, seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to take a decision on Exts. P7 and P9 therein, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the report submitted by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, indicating the proposed enactment of a Central Bill, by judgment dated 20.11.2013 in W. P. (C) No. 12618 of 2010, passed the following order:-

¶46

“3. In pursuance of such direction, the Government Pleader along with a memo filed report submitted by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, indicating the proposed

¶47

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶48

¶49

enactment of the Central Bill, which reads as under:

¶50

“It is respectfully submitted that there are no statutory provisions to approve the consultancy services, for admission to educational institutions functioning in the State of Kerala. Such consultancy services are functioning for the admissions in professional colleges outside the State of Kerala especially in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu etc. It may be noted that the admissions in the professional colleges of the said States are governed by the concerned Acts passed by the respective State Legislature. It is not possible for the Kerala State Legislature to provide provisions which are directly or indirectly against the provisions of the concerned Acts of the said State Legislatures which govern the admission in professional colleges of the said States. But it is possible to make legislations for regulating and controlling the activities of the consultancy services within the State incorporating provisions for registration fee for registration, code of conduct, functions, responsibilities of such consultancy services, compensation, penal provisions etc. Since it is not possible for the State to enter into the jurisdictions of the other States, it is proposed to impose control and regulation on the said consultancy services functioning within the State alone. The purpose can be achieved only by making a separate legislation and thereby making a compulsory registration of the said consultancy services. It may also be noted that Government of India has introduced a Bill named “The Prohibition of Unfair Practice in the Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill 2010' in the Parliament. In the preamble of the said Bill, it is stated that “the Bill is to provide for the prohibition of certain unfair practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities, to protect interest of students admitted or seeking admission therein and to provide for

¶51

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶52

¶53

matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said Bill provide provisions for conducting test for admission, publication of prospectus and prohibition of collection of capitation fee etc. imposing monetary penalties on institutions and make such acts as offences. It seems that there are ample provisions in the Bill to settle the issue related to the unfair practice prevailing in the educational field including the issues that arise due to the functioning of the consultancy services in our State also.

¶54

However, considering the time span which will take for the enactment of the Central Bill, the State Government has decided to make separate legislation for regulating and controlling the activities of the consultancy services within the State incorporating provisions for registration fee for registration, code of conduct, functions, responsibilities of such consultancy services compensation, penal provisions etc and initiated action for the same.

¶55

It is further submitted that in compliance with this Honourable Court's direction contained in the order dated 28/06/2010, the representations Exts..P7 to Ext.P9 of the Petitioner had been considered and a reply has already been given to him. Government is of the view that the matter the petitioner has raised is of a serious nature. On the basis of his representation Government have taken steps to make a suitable legislation for monitoring and registration of the education consultancy services in the State with a view to regulate their activities and to check illegal practices in the educational sector. As per the Rules of Business, Law Department is only competent to take necessary steps to make legislation on behalf of Government. Accordingly action has already been initiated for the legislation in consultation with the Law Department which is in progress now. Hence it is submitted that there is no delay or negligence on the part of State Government in considering the Exts.P7 -

¶56

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶57

¶58

P9 representations of the petitioner in WP (C) No.12618/2010. It is submitted that Government have taken all earnest effort in the matter and the action for enacting a proper legislation is progressing now.”

¶59

The State Government has decided to make separate legislation for regulating and controlling the activities of consultancy services within the State incorporating provisions for registration fee for registration, Code of Conduct etc. as submitted in the report of the Secretary.

¶60

Considering such steps, we find nothing else need be done in the above writ petition and accordingly placing the report of the Secretary, Higher Education Department, on record we close the proceedings. It is needless to say that steps already initiated by the Department shall be attended to as expeditiously as possible.”

¶61

Subsequently, when Con. Case (C) F. No. 1256 of 2022 was filed, alleging disobedience of the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 12618 of 2010 dated 20.11.2013, the same was dismissed on 12.07.2022, as barred by limitation.

¶62

Thereafter, when the petitioner filed another writ petition W. P. (C) No. 39797 of 2016, for a mandamus directing the Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram, and the State Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram, respondents 1 and 2 therein, to conduct an investigation into the complaint raised by the petitioner in Exts. P9 and P10 therein, this Court, vide judgment dated 01.02.2021, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that it was filed solely on the basis of newspaper reports.

¶63

After referring to a series of decisions, in paragraph Nos. 10 to 12, this Court ordered as under:-

¶64

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶65

¶66

“10. From the material on record, it could be deduced that petitioner has not verified as to whether the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3, is conducting any course/programme in P.B.B.Sc. Without ascertaining the above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and the State Police Chief, Police Head Quarters, Vellayambalam.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, to conduct an investigation into the complaint raised by the petitioner in Exhibits P9 and P10 respectively.

¶67

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, now impleaded, vide order dated 2^nd February, 2021 in I.A.No.184214/2017, have submitted that none of the institutions are conducting any courses through correspondence.

¶68

Submission of the learned counsel for private respondents is placed on record.

¶69

In the light of the above discussion, there is no need to conduct any investigation into the complaint preferred by the petitioner in Exhibits P9 and P10 respectively and consequently, there is no necessity to find out the agencies, which had advertised.

¶70

Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed.”

¶71

Now, on the basis of Ext. P4 representation dated 17.08.2022, petitioner seeks to resurrect the abovesaid issue.

¶72

Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of respondents and is requested to get appropriate instructions.

¶73

Post after two weeks. ”

¶74

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶75

¶76

On this day, when the matter came up for further

¶77

hearing, Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that a committee has been constituted.

¶78

Prayer made in the writ petition is to dispose of Exhibit P4 representation.

¶79

Hence, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶80

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶85

vpv

¶86

W.P.(C)No.31934 of 2022

¶87

¶88

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31934/2022

¶89

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶90

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11.03.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.11.2010
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC. NO.
12618/2010.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.11.2013 IN WP(C). NO. 12618/2010.
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE TRACKING DETAILS IN
RESPECT OF EXT. P4 REPRESENTATION.
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.02.2021 IN W.P.(C). NO. 39797/2016.

¶91

//true copy//

¶92

P.A. to Judge

M.K.Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Thomas 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmanilayam Charitable Society Vs Union of India

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandrika

Kandyan Aneesh, Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Shihab, Vs P.K.Moosa

Shihab, Vs Ravichandran.P

Sajid Ahamed, S/o.Koyakunju Vs Union Bank of India Represented by Its Manager