IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36387 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJADHANI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER), RAJADHANI HILLS, NEDUMPARAMBU.P.O, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW K.SIMON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM.695 803 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM.695 803 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC FOR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36387 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Manager of a Self Financing Engineering College. According to the petitioner, for the academic year 2010- 11, petitioner obtained approval of the AICTE for starting the course of B.Tech in Electrical and Electronics and also MBA. Based on the approval, petitioner applied to the University for affiliation for both the aforesaid courses for the academic year 2010-11. After complying with all procedural formalities, University issued Ext.P3 order of affiliation confining the same only to B.Tech Course. Ext.P3 order does not state anything about the request made by the petitioner for affiliation for MBA Course. In such circumstances, petitioner made Ext.P4 representation to the University. To this representation, there was no response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Ext.P3 order issued by the University does not even deal with its request for affiliation for both the aforesaid courses. Although I heard the standing counsel WPC No. 36387/10 :2 : appearing for the respondent University, who attempted to sustain the stand taken by the University as reflected in Ext.P3 order, I am still not satisfied that the University has applied its mind to the request of the petitioner to grant affiliation for MBA Course. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for a direction to reconsider its request for affiliation to MBA Course, which it has reiterated in Ext.P4 representation. 3. In that view of the matter, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon dealing with the request of the petitioner for affiliation to MBA Course. Orders on Ext.P4 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. While I issue the direction as above, I also record the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even if affiliation is granted, petitioner does not intent to admit students for the academic year 2010-11. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp