IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 313 of 2009(F) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31557/2007 Dated 18/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER. -------------------------------------------- MS.ROSHNA E.,AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.C.E.MOIDEENKUTTY, CHAMMALIL HOUSE, CHELEMBRA, KOLAKKATTUCHALI, MALAPPURAM - 673 634. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAM MOHAN PALACE, (OLD HIGH COURT BUILDINGS) HALL NO.VIII, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 3. THE DIRECTOR, M.E.S. MEDICAL COLLEGE, PERINTHALMANNA, P.O.PALACHODE, MALAPPARAMBA, (VIA) KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 338. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, M.E.S. MEDICAL COLLEGE, PERINTHALMANNA, P.O.PALACHODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 338. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R3-4 MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.313 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.31557 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 O R D E R Review of the judgment in WP(C) No.31557/2007 dated 18/12/2007 is sought for. By the aforesaid judgment, Ext.P10 order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges, which was challenged in the writ petition, was upheld by this Court. 2. The petitioner states that subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, she obtained fresh materials, which indicated that the reasoning on the basis of which Ext.P10 order was passed and this Court rendered the above judgment, were factually erroneous. On that basis, according to the petitioner, she filed a fresh complaint before the aforesaid Committee, which was numbered as ASC No.138/2008. However, by order dated 15/12/2008, the Committee rejected the said complaint, for the only reason that the above writ petition filed challenging Ext.P10 order referred to above was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 18/12/2007. It is R.P.No.313/2009 -2- thereupon this petition is filed and review is sought in this review petition. 3. A reading of the materials produced along with the Review Petition show that the averments in the complaint, which are dismissed by order dated 15/12/2008, were on the basis of the materials subsequently obtained by the petitioner. If that be so, the view taken by the Committee in its order dated 15/12/2008 that the complaint was not to be examined in view of the judgment in WP(C) No.31557/2007 does not appear to be correct. 4. Although, it is the case of the respondents that the materials now relied on are irrelevant, and were before the Committee while deciding Ext.P10 referred to above, having regard to the fact that order dated 15/12/2008 does not reflect consideration of those reasons, and as the only consideration is the dismissal of the writ petition, I do not think that the contention need be examined by this Court at this stage of the proceedings. 5. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to have her complaint examined on merits. Therefore, the review petition is disposed of clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to seek reopening of Complaint No.ASC No.138/2008, which was rejected by the Committee R.P.No.313/2009 -3- by order dated 15/12/2008, in which event, the Committee shall decide the complaint with notice to other parties, and duly adverting to the contentions of both parties. The review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg