IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31070 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUSHPAGIRI COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ASST.ADMINISTRATOR, TIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, RAM MOHAN PALACE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 35. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R1 SRI.DILIP MOHAN, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON 07/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 31070/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY SELF FINANCING MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.4.07 BY R1. P3. COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD.3.8.07. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 16303/07 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.10.7 IN W.P.(C). No. 29677/07 OF THIS COURT. Sdk ///True Copy/// P.A. To Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31070 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Dental College. The 1st respondent-Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges fixed the fees, which the petitioner can collect from the students of their college for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 review petition. Since no order was passed on Ext.P3 revision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P2. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P1 ignoring Ext.P2 without any further delay. (c) In the alternative to declare that petitioner is entitled to collect from the students, the fee proposed by the petitioner before the Committee.” 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, in which, in paragraph 5, it is stated thus: “5. The Review Petition filed by the Management was considered by the Committee and the representatives of the Management were also given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. Thereafter, it was found that the auditor's report produced with the Review Petition is that of the Pushpagiri Medical Society. However, the audited balance sheet and income and expenditure in respect of the Dental College were not produced along with the Review Petition. Therefore, the representatives of the College were directed to produce the same for consideration and appropriate action. However, the Management did not produce the required details and accounts in support of their request for revision of fees for BDS course and hence the Committee was prevented from passing final orders on Exhibit P3 Review Petition.” w.p.c.31070/07 2 3. In so far as the only impediment in considering Ext.P3 review petition by the 1st respondent is want of sufficient material produced by the petitioner to consider the same, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent-Committee shall issue a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing before the Committee. On that day, the Committee shall inform the petitioner as to what are all the additional details, the petitioner has to produce for consideration of Ext.P3 review petition. The Committee shall fix a time limit for production of the same. Thereafter, the Committee shall consider Ext.P3 review petition and pass orders thereon within one month from the date when the petitioner produces the details or the last date fixed for production of the details, whichever is earlier. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge