IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 812 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33006/2008 Dated 07/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- THE MANAGER, MAR AUGUSTHINOSE COLLEGE, RAMAPURAM, RAMAPURAM BAZAR-PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A. SHAJI GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K. BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO. 812 OF 2009 in WP(C) 33006/2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The Review Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the direction contained in the judgment dated 07.04.2009, in so far as it mandates execution of an agreement by the petitioner, as required by the Government, so as to provide the necessary ‘No Objection Certificate’ for starting the New Course in the petitioners’ institution and to have it affiliated by the second respondent University. The specific contention raised by the review petitioner is that granting of affiliation by the University to the concerned courses is on the basis of the provisions in the Statute framed under the University Act, which do not contemplate execution of any agreement with the Government and hence that the judgment passed by this Court directing the respondents to pursue further steps on executing such agreement by the petitioner is not correct or sustainable and liable to be reviewed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the approach and attitude displayed by the University/Government in granting necessary affiliation to the M.Sc. Biotechnology and MSW Courses intended to be RP NO.812/2009 in WP(C) 33006/08 2 started in the petitioners’ institution is a long pending one and it resulted in several rounds of litigations. The said grievance exposed in the Writ Petition and similar grievance with regard to the granting of affiliation to a New College proposed to be started by the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008 were considered together leading to the common judgment passed on 07.04.2009. 3. As observed in paragraph 10 of the common judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008 (very same counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case as well), referring to the reply affidavit and the documents produced therein pointed out that the said petitioner had executed an agreement as stipulated by the Government in Ext.R1(a), pursuant to which Ext.P14 Government order was issued on 07.11.2008 granting sanction for starting the Arts and Science College, subject to the conditions specified therein and had also issued Ext.P15 No Objection Certificate. Accordingly, the University was directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008, since all the hurdles were stated as cleared. It was in the said circumstance, that the very same learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case as well, submitted that the petitioner in the said Writ Petition [WP(C) 33006/2008] also proposed to submit ‘similar undertaking and agreement’ as stipulated in Ext.R1(a) and on such event, the matter might be directed RP NO.812/2009 in WP(C) 33006/08 3 to be considered by the concerned respondent, in the same manner as in the case of the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008. The submission made by the learned counsel in this regard was specifically recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment. It was accordingly, that the final verdict was passed, giving necessary directions to the University, to have the matter considered and finalized, observing that the petitioner would execute and submit the necessary agreement as stipulated in Ext.R1(a) (produced by the University) and as proposed during the course of hearing. In short, the direction to execute the agreement was only on the basis of the proposal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as agreed, as observed in paragraphs 10 and 15 of the impugned judgment. 4. Incidentally, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, by filing a Contempt of Court Case (C.O.C. No. 887/2009) stating that there was wilful disobedience from the part of the Registrar of the University in not implementing the judgment, by granting affiliation. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the contemnor in the said proceeding, making it clear that the judgment was very much complied with, in respect of the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008 pursuant to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the Government, on executing the agreement by the petitioners therein, where as in the instant case, it was for the petitioner to approach the Government and to have the agreement RP NO.812/2009 in WP(C) 33006/08 4 executed which was still to be satisfied. It was also pointed out that affiliation would be given, immediately on getting the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Government, for which the petitioner had to pursue further steps before the Government. It was in the said circumstance, that interference was declined in the Contempt of Court Case, observing that there was no contumascious act on the part of the contemnor and that, if the petitioner was aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the Government, he was free to proceed with further steps, by executing the agreement as proposed/agreed. 5. After the dismissal of the Contempt of Court Case, the petitioner has turned around by filing the present Review Petition, projecting a new case, that this Court has gone wrong in directing the petitioner to execute an agreement for granting the affiliation. As pointed out already, this Court has never held that the petitioner is liable to execute any agreement and the direction given by this Court was only on the basis of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as observed in paragraphs 10 and 15 of the judgment, stating that the present petitioner also proposed to execute similar agreement stated as executed by the petitioner in WP(C) 30048/2008, so as to obtain the necessary ‘No Objection Certificate’, to have affiliation by the University. While contending that the petitioner is not bound to execute any agreement, for RP NO.812/2009 in WP(C) 33006/08 5 want of statutory prescription and that the judgment suffers from the error apparent on the face of the records, the review petitioner submits on the very next breath (in paragraph ‘2’ and the last ground to the review petition) that, pursuant to the judgment, the petitioner has submitted necessary application for executing the agreement with the Government and that the Government has not taken any action so far. If the petitioner has actually executed the agreement and the Government has not taken any further steps in this regard, the petitioner’s remedy is something else and not by way of any Review Petition. The petitioner appears to be trying to blow hot and cold simultaneously; which is not liable to be entertained. 6. The judgment does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the records. No interference is called for and the Review Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that the dismissal will not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing further steps on the basis of the statutory prescriptions to have affiliation and the question regarding the liability to execute the agreement (as specified in Ext.R1(a) and referred to in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment) is left open. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc