IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 71 of 2011(S) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11451/2010 Dated 14/10/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARUN.P.V.THARAYIL HOUSE, KARIPPAYI ROAD, SUNDARGIRI, KALAMASSERY PO. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.R.UNNI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW N TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. DR.RAJANGURUKKAL, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM . 3. THOMAS JOHN MAMPRA, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM SHRI T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contempt of Court Case No.71/2011-S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the writ petitioners in W.P.(C).No.11451/2010 which was disposed of by Annexure-A1 Judgment. It is alleged in the Contempt of Court Case that the University has not properly considered the directions issued by this Court and, hence, there is non-compliance of the Judgment. 2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is pointed out that as per Annexure-B, the University has passed orders to regularise the first Semester B.A Hindi (Vocational) Model II I Complementary I Journalism examination taken in English instead of Hindi by the students of BMC Thrikkakara of 2009 Admission and to value their answer scripts and to release the results. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the amended writ petition, the writ petitioners have sought for reliefs against the University with regard to the entire course structure and the reliefs were not C.O.C. No.71/2011 -:2:- confined to the examination already undergone. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the specific direction was with regard to the examination already undertaken and not with respect to the examination to be taken in future. 3. Evidently, in the writ petition, this Court considered various aspects including Ext.P8 report of the Committee appointed by the Syndicate and, ultimately, in paragraph (17) after quashing Ext.P18, the University was directed to take a fresh decision in the light of various aspects pointed out in the earlier part of the Judgment. It was specifically directed that appropriate decision will be taken with regard to the declaration of results of the examination undertaken by the writ petitioners. Therefore, with regard to the larger issue projected by the writ petitioners, it will have to be addressed by the University, and in the present writ petition the declaration of results of the examination already undertaken was the main issue. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any ground to proceed under the C.O.C. No.71/2011 -:3:- Contempt of Court Act. Even otherwise, since the larger issue will have to be addressed by the University, it is open to the petitioner and any other students as well as the College to pursue the matter before the University which will be duly considered. The Contempt of Court Case is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE