IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34762 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. RADH MALLIK.R., ROLL NO.B.090564 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 2. PRASOON G.DAS, ROLL NO. B.090257 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 3. SARATH KUMAR.K., ROLL NO. B.090337 AR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. BY ADVS. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR, SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CALICUT PO., PIN - 673 001. 2. THE SENETE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, RREPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN - 673 001. 3. THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED VIDE ORDER DO/STUD. MISC/10 DATED 16.08.2010, RREPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, IST FLOOR, OFSHORE LABORATORY, DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT 673 001. 4. DR.M.A.NAZEER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT PO, PIN - 673 001. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KUNNAMANGALAM, CALICUT - 676 318. R1 BY ADV. SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, NIT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34762 of 2010 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are students of the first respondent. In this writ petition, their main grievance is against Ext.P6(c) order imposing punishment on them on the allegation that they have indulged in ragging. Aggrieved thereby, they have filed Exts.P9 and P12. Ext.P9 is a representation filed before the Director of the first respondent and Ext.P12 is an appeal filed before the second respondent. Petitioners seek a direction for the expeditious disposal of the representation and appeal. 2. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, who points out Section 9 of Ext.P5 Rules providing for appeal. 3. Taking note of the above, it is directed that the first respondent will consider Ext.P9 representation and the second respondent will consider Ext.P12 appeal. It is directed W.P.(C) No.34762/10 : 2 : that Ext.P9 shall be considered and orders thereon shall be passed, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and Ext.P12 shall be considered in the next meeting of the Senate. 4. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge