IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1413 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUTTIALIPRATH KHYRUNNISA RAZAAK D/O.USMAN, K.P.HOUSE, THILANOOR, PERIKKAD, KAPPAD P.O., KANNUR - 670 006 KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 1 3. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, OCI CELL, CITIZENSHIP SECTION, JAISALMER HOUSE, 26 MAN SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KANNUR - 670001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF FOR R1,2,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 1413/2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PASSPORT DT. 16-4-2008. EXT.P2 IDENTIFY CARD DT. 20-3-2006. EXT.P3 MARKS STATEMENT DT. 27-5-2006. EXT.P4 DO. DT. 21-5-2008. EXT.P5 MARK/DATS SHEET DT. 24-6-2008. EXT.P6 REJECTION MEMO DT. 28-3-2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF SCHEME PIO CARD. EXT.P8 VISA DT. 25-10-2002. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 11/2002. EXT.P10 RESIDENTIAL PERMIT DT. 18-11-2002. EXT.P11 APPLICATION DT. 9/2003. EXT.P12 APPLICATION DT. 19-9-2006. EXT.P12(a) APPLICATION DT. 27-7-2009. EXT.P13 LETTER DT. 8-9-2009. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 8-1-2010. EXT.P15 NOTIFICAION DT. 4-12-2009. EXT.P16 RELEVANT PAGE OF ONLINE REGISTRATION. EXT.P17 APPLICATION DT. 15-12-2009. EXT.P18 COMMUNICATION DT. 29-3-2010. EXT.P19 EXTENSION ORDER DT. 20-4-2010. EXT.P20 APPLICATION DT. 19-5-2010. EXT.P21 DEMAND DRAFT DT. 20-5-2010. EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 1413 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Indian resident. She married a Sri-Lankan citizen. Petitioner's second daughter applied for admission to professional degree courses in Kerala. She has been applying for the admission to the Medical Colleges in Kerala for some years. Every year, her application was being rejected on the ground that she has not produced the OCI registration card, which is a must, since she is a foreign citizen. At the same time, the application submitted by the petitioner and her daughter for OCI registration is not being considered by the 3rd respondent . It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent or to his officers subordinate not to reject Ext. P17 application for admission to professional degree courses 2010, Kerala, submitted by Fathima Sifana alias Sifana Razack, the daughter of the petitioner, on the ground of non-production of OCI Card along with Ext. P17 application. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent or to his officers subordinate, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant the petitioner's daughter Miss Fathima Sifana alias Sifana Razack, sufficient opportunity to submit the OCI card in compliance of the requirements under Ext. P15 notification, to appear for the Engineering-Medical Entrance Examination for the year 2010.” 2. On 2-6-2010, I passed the following interim order: “The petitioner seeks declaration of the results for the Entrance Examination written by her daughter and to allow her to participate in the admission process in accordance with the rank of the petitioner's daughter in the Entrance Examination. 2. The learned Government Pleader strenuously W.P.C. No. 1413/2010. -: 2 :- opposes with the help of a counter affidavit. According to him, without an OCI permit, the petitioner's daughter is not entitled to have her application for admission, even considered. He would strongly argue that respondents 1 and 2 are not in any way at fault in the matter. The prospectus is very clear, which insists on production of an OCI permit for consideration of the application of persons like the petitioner. It is very true that production of an OCI permit is a condition precedent for consideration of the application. But, here the petitioner's daughter could not produce it not because of any fault on her part. She has applied for an OCI permit last year. It was not either granted or rejected. She could not get admission last year. Again the candidate applied for OCI permit. There is no response from the Central Government and the petitioner approached this Court as early as on 14.1.2010 with this writ petition. Despite receipt of notice Central Government is not even favouring this court with a counter affidavit or statement as to why the application filed by the petitioner's daughter for OCI permit is not disposed of. I am of opinion that a person who is not at fault, should not be allowed to suffer time and again because of the lethargy on the part of the third respondent. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner's daughter should be allowed to participate in the admission process notwithstanding the production of the OCI permit, provisionally subject to result of the writ petition. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the first respondent to declare the results of the petitioner's daughter for the Entrance Examination and to allow her to participate in the selection process like counselling etc., if as per the rank obtained by her in the Entrance Examination she is entitled to. However, I make it clear that this would be subject to the result of the writ petition and if ultimately her application for OCI is rejected by the Central Government on valid grounds, her admission would be liable to be cancelled. The third respondent shall immediately consider the application of the petitioner's daughter for OCI permit and pass an order within one week from today. The learned Asst. solicitor General shall fax a copy of this order to the third respondent who shall act on the same positively within the time prescribed above, failing which this court would be compelled to order personal appearance of the third respondent.” Pursuant thereto, on 5-7-2010, the learned Assistant Solicitor General has submitted before me that OCI registration has been granted on 30-6-2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that the W.P.C. No. 1413/2010. -: 3 :- registration has been forwarded to the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to regularise the admission of the petitioner in accordance with he OCI registration now forwarded as if it has been produced in time as required under the prospectus. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/