IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31075 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SHERIF.O.P., S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS, O.P.HOUSE, MINI ROAD, CHANGUVATTY, KOTTAKKAL-676 503. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR-670 567. 2. CHAIRMAN, BOARD FOR ADJUDICATION OF STUDENTS GRIEVANCES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR-670 567. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 503. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, PARIYARAM DENTAL COLLEGE, KANNUR-670 503. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R1 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31075/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY DR.AYSHA THASNEEM. EXHIBIT -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION NO.B1.1177/10/DC/GEN DATED 20/10/2011. EXHIBIT -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE DATED 15/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEOFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE DATED 15/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF GRIEVANCE PETITION DT 18.11.11 SENT BY REGISTERED POST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31075 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has completed BDS from the Pariyaram Dental College. By Ext.P2 order, he along with another person was placed under suspension, which was based on Ext.P1 complaint made by a Junior Superintendent of the College. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, petitioner has moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P6. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed challenging the suspension. 2. In my view, now that the petitioner has already moved the statutory authority viz, the 2nd respondent, it is for the 2nd respondent to deal with Ext.P6. However, learned counsel for the University points out that in terms of the University Statutes, Ext.P6 should have been routed through either the University Union or through the Principal. However, the case of the petitioner is that the two authorities refused to forward the application and that therefore he had to make Ext.P6 directly to WPC No.31075/11 :2 : the 2nd respondent. 3. Irrespective of the controversy, fact remains that the representation has already been made to the statutory authority and in my view, the procedural formalities should not defeat the valuable right of the petitioner to get the representation considered in accordance with law. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 in accordance with law at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp