IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 33586 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PRINCIPAL,ST.JOSEPH COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION,KURISUMMOOD.P.O, CHANGANACHERRY-686 104. BY ADVS. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL, SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2. ARUN V.APPU,VALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, OORAMANA.P.O,KAYANADU,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,KOTTAYAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A.SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33586/2009 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 2/09/2009 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 2009 (8) SCC 483. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.33586 of 2009-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010. Judgment 1.The second respondent joined for the course of B.A.Multimedia in the petitioner college. He sat for a supplementary examination in a couple of papers of the first semester. The University, which conducts the examination, was not satisfied with the manner in which the examination was conducted in the petitioner's college. On ground that the University was not satisfied with the conduct of the examination, results were not announced. The second respondent was undergoing a course where he would have got further opportunities to write the supplementary examinations. Instead, he filed a complaint before the CDRF seeking compensation. The college has filed this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the CDRF to adjudicate the matter. WPC33586/09 -: 2 :- 2.The University is a statutory body. It conducts examination in terms of its regulations. The college does not have any role in the matter of holding the examination other than to participate as the duly controlled agent of the University to conduct the examination. This is done under the control of the Controller of Examinations of the University. Obviously, the ultimate authority to supervise and conduct the examination is the University. The college acts as an agent and has no independent role in the matter. Hence, in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483, the University could not have been sued before the CDRF by treating it as a service provider. The student also could not have been treated as consumer. There is no liability for the college also as the agent of the University in so far as it conducts the examination, to announce the results or to answer any claim for compensation by treating it WPC33586/09 -: 3 :- as a service provider. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.285/2009 on the file of the first respondent are declared as without jurisdiction and hence quashed. The writ petition allowed accordingly. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0206