IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 341 of 2009 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).432/2009 DATED 16/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- KVM TRUST, POST BOX - 30, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.V.V. PYARELAL. BY ADVS. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, MR.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SMT.A.SIRJI. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. BY MR. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.341 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 13th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Appellant/petitioner filed Ext.P2 application seeking affiliation of the University for starting a new course, viz., B.Sc. M.L.T. (Medical Laboratory Technology). By Ext.P3, it was informed that the application was defective and incomplete and, therefore, it was rejected. Learned single Judge held that the if University forwarded the details of the defects, petitioner could have rectified the defects. The learned Judge also noted that apart from stating that the application was defective and incomplete, the communication does not say in what respect the application was defective and incomplete. Learned Judge observed as follows: “According to him, if those details were mentioned in Ext.p3, the petitioner could have rectified the defect and applied for affiliation. I see merit in this contention. Apart from stating that the application was defective and incomplete, the communication does not say in what respect the application was defective and incomplete. As rightly contended, only if such information is disclosed, the petitioner can rectify the defect.” W.A.341/2009 2 Therefore, the learned Judge directed the University to intimate the petitioner in what respect the application submitted by the petitioner for affiliation of the course mentioned above was defective and incomplete and the above information should be furnished within four weeks of production of a copy of the judgment. University did not file appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that in Ext.P3 it is stated that the application is rejected. That has to be set aside. Otherwise, no purpose will be served by curing the defects in an application which was already rejected. A reasonable reading of the judgment shows that learned single judge virtually set aside Ext.P3. If defects are cured by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of communication of defects by the University, the application should be considered by the University according to law as if the application is filed in time for affiliation of the University for starting the above course for the year 2009-2010. Appeal is disposed of with the above direction. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE tks