Dismissed

Park Maritime Academy, v. The Registrar

Madras HC9 Aug 2016WP/27346/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the respondent University to conduct fresh counseling or permit admit students based on choice. The Court held that the circular restricting counseling was a policy decision not alleged as arbitrary or malafide and could not lightly be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conduct fresh counseling or permit admission is not granted.

Park Maritime Academy, Vs The Registrar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.08.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

W.P.No.27346 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.23548 and 23549 of 2016

¶6

Park Maritime Academy

¶7

rep. by its Chairman Dr.P.V.Ravi, NH-47, Avinashi Road, Kaniyur (PO), Coimbatore-641 659.

¶8

.. Petitioner vs.

¶9

The Registrar, Indian Maritime University, (Central University, Government of India), East Coast Road, Uthandi, Chennai-600 119.

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to admit students on their own choice as per the norms prescribed for B.Tech (M.E.) by University or in the alternative direct the respondent to conduct fresh CET (Supple) 2016.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver among other things that their college is affiliated to the respondent University for B.Tech Maritime Engineering Course with annual intake of 40 seats. The petitioner would claim that they are having sufficient infrastructural facilities and original counseling process was done by them for admission of students to affiliated colleges also and all of a sudden, the respondent issued a circular dated 01.06.2016 for the academic session 2016-2017 stating that Online Counseling will be limited only to Indian Martime University's own Campus and the affiliated colleges, which are

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

private self-financing colleges, shall make their own arrangement subject to IMU Common Entrance Test and fulfilling other eligibility criteria. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though the petitioner institution is having annual intake of 40 seats, only few students get admitted and in the event of second counseling conducted, there may be chance of more students getting admission and hence, came forward with this writ petition.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that in the light of change of policy decision, affiliated colleges like the petitioner institution are put to grave hardship and in the event of second counseling being ordered to be conducted by this Court, more students may get admitted and get further benefits and therefore, appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent University to conduct second counseling.

¶18

Per contra, Mr.K.R.Tamizh Mani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University would contend that no doubt on an earlier occasion, counseling process was done even for affiliated colleges also and there was a change of policy in the form of Circular, in and by which the said process is restricted to admission to IMU's campus alone and if it for the respective private institutions to get students admitted into their institution. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that if the institute is having sufficient infrastructure and other facilities, then students automatically will try to get admission in those institute only and prays for appropriate orders.

¶19

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before it.

¶20

The respondent has issued a Circular dated 01.06.2016 restricting the Online Counseling for the academic session 201617 to the seats in Indian Maritime University's Campus only and reason has also been assigned as to the taking of such policy decision in the circular and admittedly, the said circular has not been put to challenge by the petitioner institution. In the considered opinion of the Court, the above said circular is only a policy decision and it cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court, unless the petitioner alleges arbitrariness in exercise of power or malafide on the part of the respondent and admittedly the petitioner did not allege so. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
jvm
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(J)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The Registrar,
Indian Maritime University,
(Central University, Government of India),
East Coast Road, Uthandi,
Chennai-600 119.
+ 1 cc to M/s.P.R.Balasubraanian, Advocate SR 45342
rsi(co)
prk29/8 W.P.No.27346 of 2016

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Park Maritime Academy, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Park Maritime Academy, v. The Registrar

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

Joint Liability Group NO.7 Vs the Sercretary to Government

M/s. Yogaa Manpower Agencies, Vs The Principal

Arulmigu Parvatheeswarar Vs The District Collector

R.Shunmugham, IAS (Retd.,) Vs The Chairman and Managing

Mrs.K.Saroja Vs The Sub Registrar

M/s.Green Globe Trading Co. Vs The Union of India