IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 8086 of 2011(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- CHATHUMKULAM FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, CHANDRANAGAR BYE PASS, PALAKKAD-7, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN C.B.SUMESH BABU, S/O.C.R.BHAVADAS, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SMT.P.G.BABITHA SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE-560009. 4. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8086 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The main grievance of the petitioner, which is a charitable trust, is that though Ext.P7 application was filed before the Regional Committee of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) the statutory body, for the establishment of the campus to establish a college for imparting MBA programme, the same has not considered so far. The standing counsel for the University submitted that, an inspection was conducted by the authorities appointed by the University but because of the ban imposed by the election commission, the recommendations could not be forwarded to respondents 1 and 2 for the issuance of the No Objection Certificate. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially in the light of the fact that inspection has already been conducted by the committee appointed by the University, I am of the view that, this writ petition can be disposed 2 W.P.(C)No.8086 of 2011 of, directing the 4th respondent to forward the recommendations of the committee appointed by the University to respondents 1 and 2 and also with direction to pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to forward the report and recommendations, if any prepared by the committee appointed by the 4th respondent University, as expeditiously as possible to respondents 1 and 2 for their consideration and to take a decision on merit regarding the issuance of No Objection Certificate as applied for as per Ext.P7 application and the 4th respondent is also directed to consider Ext.P8 request for approval and Ext.P9 request for prior affiliation. Accordingly, respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to consider Exts.P7, P8 and P9 respectively and pass orders thereon, at any rate within a period of 45 days after 18.5.2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/