IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2081 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ADI SANKARA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, SANKAR NAGAR, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL, PROF.DR.S.GOPALAKRISHNA IYER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE). 2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R1 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2081/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF APPROVAL GRANTED BY AICTE. EXT.P2: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 3/01/07 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF GOVT.ORDER DTD. 30/08/07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ========================= WRIT PETITION NO.2081 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a college conducting courses in various branches of Engineering. Ext.P1 is an order passed by the first respondent allowing additional intake of students in different branches of Engineering. The petitioner sought affiliation of the University for additional intake and Ext.P2 is the application that has been made. Ext.P2 has not been considered by the University and, at any rate, no decision on Ext.P2 has been conveyed to the petitioner till date. The petitioner refers to Ext.P3 communication issued by the second respondent directing that the policy of the government is not to permit new colleges, institutions, new courses and increase of intake in existing courses until a comprehensive study as to their requirement is made. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that the views of the government in this regard is mandatory. University, on the other hand, would submit that they have recommended the application of the petitioner to the government for obtaining their views as is required under Section 9(6) of Chapter 23 of the M.G.University statutes. According to the University, it is because the government have not conveyed W.P.9C)2081/2008 2 their views in the matter that they have not taken a final decision on Ext.P2. 2. In several cases, this court has already held that the obligation of the University, in terms of the statute mentioned above, is only to seek the views of the government and that the University is not expected to wait endlessly, awaiting for the government to convey its view. If the views of the government, and it is not forthcoming the University is perfectly at liberty to proceed and decide on the application made by the petitioner. Therefore I cannot approve the reasoning of the University and justify the delay on their part. In my view, the University shall take a decision without any more delay in the matter. 3. Therefore, I direct that the second respondent University shall take up, consider and finally decide on the application for affiliation made by the petitioner for additional intake sanctioned by the first respondent by Ext.P1 order. University shall do the needful within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/ W.P.9C)2081/2008 3 css/