IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31994 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE MANAGER, RAJAGIRI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 039. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.31994/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AFFILIATION, SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY ON 19/1/2010. P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/8/2010, GRANTING APPROVAL TO 3 NEW M.TECH COURSES. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2010 OF HIGHER EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31994 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Self Financing Engineering College. The College had not entered into any seat sharing agreement with the Government. Petitioner had applied to the AICTE for approval to start a few M.Tech courses in the College. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the AICTE, granting approval. Thereupon, the petitioner applied for affiliation to the respondent University. All procedural formalities were complied with by the university, and in the statement filed, the University has no case that any facility is lacking in the college. Despite all this, affiliation was not granted. 2. According to the petitioner, the reason is that in Ext.P3 order issued by the Government, the petitioner was required to comply with all the 14 conditions specified therein for grant of affiliation. It is challenging Ext.P3 order to the extent it contains clause nos. 2 to 6 and 11 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. On behalf of the University a statement has been filed. According to the University, the inspection report assessing the W.P.(C) NO. 31994 OF 2010 2 facilities provided by the college was considered by the Syndicate and the Syndicate resolved to seek the views of the Government of Kerala for granting affiliation sought by the petitioner for the academic year 2010-2011. It is stated that though the University has issued letter dated 23.08.2010 in this behalf to the Government of Kerala seeking their views, the Government have not conveyed their views so far. According to the University, it is for that reason, order of affiliation has not been passed on the application made by the petitioner. 4. There is no dispute that the University has sought the views of the Government. It is not a matter of dispute that the University is not bound to wait for the views of the Government for granting affiliation. That apart from Ext.P3 dated 23.08.2010, it is evident that the said order has been issued by the government in response to the letter issued by the University, mentioned in paragraph 4 of the statement. Therefore, Ext.P3 has to be taken as the letter conveying the views of the Government. 5. In so far as clauses 2 to 6 and 11 of Ext.P3 are concerned, no statutory provisions obliging the petitioner to W.P.(C) NO. 31994 OF 2010 3 comply with those conditions are shown to me. Therefore, I am of the view that the university is bound to pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for affiliation, for the academic year 2010-2011 in respect of the M Tech course approved by the AICTE by Ext.P2, ignoring clause 2 to 6 and 11 of Ext.P3. This is the third respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. ln