IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 10494 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SREE NARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, MANNAM P.O.,N.PARUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18660 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 10494/2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF LETTER DT. 31-5-2006. EXT.P1(a) COPY OF SL. NO. 10 TO 17 OF APPENDIX TO EXT. P1. EXT.P2 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 2631/2008 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P3 COMMUNICATION DT. 3-3-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 10494 & 18660 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions are managements of two unaided self-financing colleges, who aspire for affiliation of certain new courses they want to start in their colleges. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 10494/2008 wants to start the following courses: (1) Master in Human Resources Management. (2) M.Sc. Microbiology. (3) M.Sc. Bio Technology. (4) M.Sc. Bio Chemistry, and (5) M.Sc. Bio Informatics. The petitioner in the other writ petition aspires to start the following courses: (1) M.Sc. Food Science and Quality Control. (2) Bachelor of Fashion Technology. (3) Bachelor of Library Science. (4) M.Sc. Bio Chemistry, and (5) Master of Tourism Administration. By Ext. P1 in W.P(C) No. 10494/2008, the University informed the Government that the Syndicate of the University has resolved to recommend to the Government to sanction four courses mentioned therein for which the petitioner sought affiliation from the University. In the other writ petition, by Ext. P1 communication from the University Registrar to the petitioner, they were informed that the University has recommended to the Government for starting the above said courses. Since nothing happened thereafter, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P(C) Nos. 2631/2008 and 33125/2007 respectively. Both were disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment (in both the writ petitions) as per which the University was W.P.C. Nos. 10494 & 18660/2008. -: 2 :- required to consider their applications for affiliation. Thereafter, pursuant to the judgment of this Court , both petitioners were served with Ext. P3 (in both the writ petitions) informing them that the question of affiliation of those courses cannot be considered without completing a feasibility study. The petitioners are challenging the respective Ext. P3 in these writ petitions. They seek the following identical reliefs in the writ petitions: “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext. P3. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the respondent University to consider the application for affiliation of the Post Graduate Courses asked for, strictly in accordance with the provisions of S. 23(1) of the MG. University Act and Chapter 23 of the M.G. University First Statutes. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the University to permit the petitioner to start the post graduate courses, now declined boy Ext. P3, from the academic year 2008-09 onwards.” The contention of the petitioners is that after having recommended to the Government for starting of the courses in their respective colleges, the University cannot now take a different stand and refuse to grant affiliation on the ground that a feasibility study has to be conducted. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the University would contend that after Ext. P1, the situation changed and in view of the changed circumstances, it was necessary to ascertain whether conducting of such courses in the locality concerned is feasible. In W.P(C) No. 18660/2008, in their counter affidavit, the University would point out that in nine courses started by the college previously, only a very fraction of the sanctioned strength could be filled up, W.P.C. Nos. 10494 & 18660/2008. -: 3 :- which would go to show that the number of students aspiring for such courses have decreased considerably. He particularly points out that in some courses to which affiliation was granted, there were no students at all. The University would therefore contend that their decision to conduct a feasibility study in the circumstances cannot be faulted in any manner. On these contentions, the University would submit that the writ petitions are without any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In so far as the University themselves have issued Ext. P1 in both the writ petitions, whereby they themselves had recommended to the Government for starting the respective courses in the respective colleges, they cannot now contend that that recommendation was without considering the parameters required for such recommendation as per the University Statutes. Obviously, the parameters required for the same were satisfied in the petitioners' cases, considering which only they had recommended starting of these courses to the Government. Therefore, after issuing Ext. P1, the only contention the University could now raise, perhaps, is only that they did not receive the views of the Government. That also is not available to them because the petitioners have obtained Ext. P2 judgment in this regard directing the University to consider their applications for affiliation, which direction was issued while there was delay on the part of the Government in conveying their views. That being the case, the only objection the University could have taken, namely, that the views of the Government were not received, also loses its relevance. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be drawn in this case is that there is no sustainable objection now for the W.P.C. Nos. 10494 & 18660/2008. -: 4 :- University to refuse affiliation to the courses for which the University themselves have recommended in the petitioners' colleges. Accordingly, I dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the University to grant affiliation to the courses mentioned in Ext. P1 in both cases to the respective colleges. Orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/