IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2541 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ J.P.M.ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, LABBAKKADA, KANCHIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER FR.JOSEPH KATTACKAL. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2541 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an application made by the petitioner for affiliation. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter an inspection was conducted and on 20.5.2006 the committee made its recommendations as can be seen from Ext.P3 series. It is stated that even thereafter the University did not take a final decision and finally the petitioner received Ext.P5 informing them that their request has been processed by the University and forwarded to the Government. According to the University they are conducting feasibility study and sanctioning of new colleges will be based on the study. Ext.P5 communication is dated 13.8.2007. 2. Even now the counsel for the University submits that as per the instructions from the 2nd respondent, the policy decision is not to sanction any new colleges unless the feasibility study of the committee is completed. It is also stated that the University is bound to take into account the recommendations of the Higher WP(C) 2541/08 Page numbers Education Council. 3. This court in several cases held that it is not necessary for the University to wait endlessly for the views of the Government to consider the application made by an educational agency. In this case it can be seen that Ext.P1 application is made as early as on 28.6.2005 and even as on date there has not been any progress in the matter. The feasibility study mentioned in Ext.P5 also has not reached anywhere. In these circumstances I do not think that there is any justification for postponing the decision on Ext.P1 any further. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall take a final decision on Ext.P1 and communicate the same to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-