IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32331 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. GIBIN BABY, S/O.K.A.BABY, KALARICKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKOMBU, KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. BIJU THOMAS, S/O.K.M.THOMAS,KULAPPURATH, KIZHAKUMBU, KOOTHATTUKULAM, SELECTION COMMITTEE JOINT CONVENER, M.G.UNIVERSITY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AIU HOUSE, COMRADE INDRAJIT GUPTA MARG (KOTLA MARG), NEW DELHI-02. 2. THE CONVENOR, ALL INDIA INTERUNIVERSITY FOOTBALL TOURNAMENT (MEN) 2008-09, UNIVERSITY OF GOA, PANAJI. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.32331 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is a member of the M.G University Foot ball team. Second petitioner is the selection committee Joint Convenor of the M.G University. They seem to be representing the other members of the M.G University Foot Ball Team 2008-2009. They are aggrieved by the action taken by the Association of Indian Universities, in advancing the Inter University Foot Ball Matches, originally scheduled to be held in January, 2009 and now proposed to be advanced to November 2008. They submit that this will have the effect of denying an opportunity to at least 45 University team from the South Zone. They contend that the action taken in this regard by the 1st respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The 1st respondent Association of Indian Universities. The 2nd respondent is the Convenor of All Indian Inter University Football Tournament and possibly W.P ( C) No.32331 of 2008 2 has been nominated in that regard by the 1st respondent. Both the respondents are situated outside the jurisdiction of the State. Therefore, the writ petition will not lie under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India. 3. The next question is whether this court has jurisdiction in terms of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India. Action taken by the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The court within whose jurisdiction the 1st respondent has it's seat of authority would be competent to entertain a writ petition of the present nature. One other court which may have jurisdiction in this regard would be the court within whose jurisdiction the tournament was proposed to be held. Petitioners no doubt, are residents within the state that by itself would not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain a plea of the present nature. I am satisfied that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Babu Paul refers to judgments of this Court in O.P. No.18004 of 1997 and Full Bench of this Court in O.P. No.18501 of 1997 W.P ( C) No.32331 of 2008 3 where writ petitions filed against the Association of Indian University have been entertained by this Court and directions have been issued as such. May be this is so. But the cause of action in so far as those two writ petitions are concerned were obviously different. Moreover, I do not find that the question of jurisdiction was either mooted or considered by this Court in the aforementioned two judgments. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32331 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.32331 of 2008 5