IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD APRIL 2010 / 3RD VAISAKHA 1932 WA.No. 749 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7606/2010 Dated 07/04/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, LG SPORTS COMPLEX, L.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110 002. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE SELF FINANCING B.PHARM, COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, ST.JAMES HOSPITAL, CHALAKKUDY, TRICHUR DISTRICT-680 307. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF H.R.D., DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. BY G.P. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------ W.A.No.749 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant, who is the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.7606 of 2010, challenges the correctness of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge on 7/4/2010 in W.P.(C) No.7606 of 2010. By the said interim order, the learned single Judge granted the writ petitioner 10 days further time from 7/4/2010 to submit applications under the new norms. By the order impugned, the last date was extended from 5/4/2010 to 17/4/2010. This writ appeal is filed on 22/4/2010 challenging the correctness of the said decision. 2. We have gone through the order impugned in the writ appeal. We have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge has not passed an order directing the appellant to process the application submitted by the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge has only granted 10 W.A. NO. 749/2010 -2- days further time from 7/4/2010 to the writ petitioner to submit applications under the new norms. In the order impugned, the learned single Judge has also directed that the applications submitted under the previous norms shall not be summarily rejected. In such circumstances, as no order adverse to the interests of the appellant has been passed, we are of the view that the appellant is not justified in challenging the interim order passed by the learned single Judge. The question whether the applications submitted by the writ petitioner should be entertained, processed and disposed of remains to be decided in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we dismiss the writ appeal. The appellant may move the learned single Judge for early hearing of the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the time fixed by the learned single Judge in the interim order dated 7/4/2010 has already expired and therefore unless the time fixed by the learned single Judge is extended, the writ petitioner will not be in a position to apply. Having regard to the fact that the time limit fixed by the learned single Judge in the interim order has expired, we direct the appellant to permit W.A. NO. 749/2010 -3- the writ petitioner to apply, provided they submit applications under the new norms within a period of 10 days from today. The appellant shall make necessary arrangements in order to enable the writ petitioner to submit applications pursuant to the order impugned in this appeal. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. dpk