IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 630 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- T.K.HARIKUMAR, SECRETARY, NON RESIDENT INDIANS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,(NRIWA) *( H - 15, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI - 110 049.) *POST BOX NO.6., THAMATH BHAVAN, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. *(ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DTD. 7/01/08 IN I.A.322/08) BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS (DIASPORA SERVICES DIVISION), AKBAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, (PIO/NRI UNIVERSITY) MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AKBAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE SECRETARY, AKBAR BHAVAN, TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. R1 7 R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARAD ON 15/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.630/2008 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES DTD. 30/12/97. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE PETITIONER NRIWA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 14/06/07. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DOWN LOADED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EXTENDING THE LAST DATE FOR SUBMITTING EXPRESSION OF INTEREST. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 27/07/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 26/10/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY 7/11/07. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/11/07. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 8/12/07. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/12/07. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 19/12/07. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 26/12/07. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY (COCHIN EDITION) DTD. 5/01/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 630 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Prayers in the writ petition are as follows: “i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of any decision taken by the respondents to sanction the setting up the PIO/NRI University proposed under Ext.P2 notification to any person or organization, and to quash the same. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from proceeding to finalise the successful applicant for sanction of the right to set up and administer the PIO/NRI University proposed under Ext.P2 notification unless and until such time as proper norms/standards/guidelines for selection of such successful applicant has been framed and published. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to consider the short - listed application for the proposed PIO/NRI University, including this petitioner's application, strictly in accordance with law, prior to finalizing the successful applicant to be sanctioned the right to set up and administer such University.” WPC. 630/2008. 2 2. Petitioner claims to be the Secretary of a Non-Resident Indians Welfare Association. Government of India took a policy decision to establish a Deemed University in India for children of people of Indian origin/Non-Resident Indians and issued Ext. P2 paper advertisement inviting applications from competent organizations for “Expression of Interest for Short-listing of Trusts/Societies for establishing a PIO/NRI University”. Ext.P3 is the guidelines. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 Expression of Interest. It is the petitioner's case that 32 organizations had submitted their expression of interest. By Ext.P5 it is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was called upon to provide certain information/details/documents. According to the petitioner, petitioner submitted Ext.P6. Thereafter, after scrutiny eleven eligible organizations came to be shortlisted. Petitioner's organization was asked to make their presentation vide Ext.P7. Petitioner prepared and made a power point presentation vide Ext.P8. Thereafter the second respondent, it is stated, has further short listed five out of eleven and petitioner is part of the short list of five. By Ext.P9, the petitioner was called upon to provide certain details. The details were made available is the further case of the petitioner. Still further by Ext.P10 communication dated 19.12.2007, the petitioner was asked to furnish some more details and information regarding the WPC. 630/2008. 3 availability of land, experience in the field of education and financial resources and also the cash flow statements and consolidated financial statements for five years etc. Petitioner submitted Ext.P11, it is stated. It is while so, the petitioner submits that it is informally understood that the respondents have taken a secretive decision to allow three organizations of their choice to set up a PIO/NRI University each, and that the petitioner Association has been sidelined totally in this regard. It is stated that the increase in number is due to political intervention and also by political pressures and influence. Accordingly the petitioner has approached this court for the reliefs, which I have already referred to. 3. This court issued notice and passed an interim order. A counter affidavit is brought on record by both the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, certain preliminary objections have been taken. According to the respondents, in short a final decision is yet to be taken. It is stated that as and when a final decision is taken any person aggrieved by such decision can approach the court, provided he has a valid grievance in law and that the present writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. It is further stated as follows: “Since some of the proposals received, including that of the petitioner, did not contain the requisite details/information/documents called for, vide the WPC. 630/2008. 4 advertisement/guidelines, such parties were requested vide Ministry's letter dated 26.10.2007 to furnish the same, latest by 10.11.2007. This was done with a view of ensure transparency and afford fair opportunity to all applicants. At the third meeting of the Screening Committee held on 14.11.2007 it was decided that the five applicants who had not provided the additional information called for, need not be considered any further. The remaining 11 applicants were requested to make their presentations to the Screening Committee on 8.12.2007 vide Ministry's letter dated 16.11.2007. Ten applicants made their presentations. One applicant did not turn up for the presentation. The said procedure was adopted only to ensure transparency in the selection of applicants. After hearing the presentations on 8.12.2007, the Screening Committee found that the proposals made by five of the 10 trusts/societies do not warrant any further consideration, because of lack of adequate experience in the field of higher education and lack of requisite financial resources, etc. Based on the presentations, the Committee decided to further evaluate only 5 applications to shortlist the eligible applicants. These five applicants were against requested vide letter dated 19.12.2007 to give concrete information regarding the following matters: a. Availability of land for the purpose of setting up of the proposed PIO University, with documentary proof in support of the claim; WPC. 630/2008. 5 b. Experience in the field of education and how it is proposed to meet the aspirations of the PIOs/NRIs in this University; c. Financial resources currently available for the project and how it is proposed to finance the project requirements; d. Cash flow statement and funds flow statement for the last five years in respect of not only of the group but also the educational institutions established and being administered by them. The Committee also decided that applicants who had submitted documentary proof of land-holding and assured finances should be given preference over others who had not submitted any documentary proof. It was accordingly decided to evaluate the proposals on the basis of their existing capabilities for setting up of the University.” 4. Reply affidavit is filed, wherein paper report is also produced. 5. I heard learned Senior counsel Sri. P.Ravindran, and learned Senior counsel for the respondents Sri.P.R.Rao. 6. Sri. P.Ravindran would contend that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is among the short listed five. It is his contention that the province of the Screening Committee is only to ascertain whether the applicants satisfy the criteria. Thereafter it is the evaluating board which has to consider the matter and at the top of the pyramid is the Government WPC. 630/2008. 6 of India and it is the Government of India which has to take a final decision, he contends. In this regard he drew my attention to Clause 15 of Ext.P3. He would contend with reference to what is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that though petitioner is among the five who remained after elimination of the rest, having regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit the petitioner stands ousted. He would contend that it is only after a party is selected that he need make arrangements in regard to the land. In this regard, he points out that in Ext.P11 he has brought to the notice of the authority that he has already entered into an agreement regarding the purchase of large extent of land. He would submit in short that the Committee is going against the guidelines, by which it is bound. 7. Sri.P.R.Rao, on the other hand would contend that the writ petition itself is premature. He would submit that a final decision is to be taken by the Government of India. It is the Government of India which actually selects the person for the award of the right to establish the deemed University. He would reiterate the stand taken in the counter affidavit. He would also point out that Clause 15 of Ext.P3 relied on by the petitioner cannot advance the case of the petitioner having regard to the wording of the said provision. He would also submit that what is important is that when the authority selects a person, such person should be able to proceed WPC. 630/2008. 7 to establish the University without any delay and that is a view which may be accepted. 8. I would think that in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that a final decision as such is not taken, the present writ petition need not be considered at this stage. I would, in other words, take the view that the writ petition as such is premature. It is not in dispute that the decision to select the candidate has to be taken by the Government of India. It is not in dispute that such a decision has not been taken. In such circumstances, I would think that the writ petition itself can be disposed of as follows: The writ petition is disposed of leaving open the contentions of the parties and making it clear that it is for the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge a final decision to be taken by the authority. The final decision to be taken by the Government of India shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of taking the decision. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb