Kerala High Court

Mangalam College Of Engineering vs Dr. Baiju B on 8 February, 2021

Con.Case(C).No.88 OF 2021       -1-
IN WA. 1586/2020

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                  &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

             Con.Case(C).No.88 OF 2021 IN WA. 1586/2020

            AGAINST THE ORDER 22.10.2020 IN WA 1586/2020
                       OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/S:

                MANGALAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
                MANGALAM HILLS, VETTIMUKAL P.O.,
                ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM 686631,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                BIJU VARGHESE

                BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC

RESPONDENT/S:

      1.        DR. BAIJU B,
                REGISTRAR IN CHARGE,
                APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
                CET CAMPUS, ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST OFFICE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.

      2.        DR. RAJASREE M.S.,
                THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
                APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
                CET CAMPUS, ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST OFFICE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016.
                R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
                R1 & R2 BY ADV. K. R. GANESH

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C).No.88 OF 2021            -2-
IN WA. 1586/2020




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of February, 2021

S. Manikumar, C. J.

On 21.01.2021, we passed the following order:-

"Pursuant to our direction, Dr. Biju. B, Registrar (in- charge), APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University is present in court.

2. He submitted that due to mistake, order dated 22.12.2020 in W.A. No.1586 of 2020 could not be communicated to Mangalam College of Engineering/appellant or to the learned counsel.

3. Mr. Saji Isaac.K.J, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of the above said order was sent to him by e-mail on 11.1.2020, after the Contempt Case(C). No.88 of 2021 was served on learned counsel for the University. According to him, time for admission was extended upto 31.12.2020. Delay in sending the order of rejection was deliberate and therefore, appropriate action be taken, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Prima facie, we observe that the delay in communication has resulted in filing of the Contempt Case.

IN WA. 1586/2020

Registrar-in-Charge of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University is directed to file an affidavit explaining the reasons as to why order dated 22.12.2020 was not communicated immediately.

5. Future appearance of Registrar-in-charge, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University/1st respondent is dispensed with for the time being."

2. Pursuant to the above, Registrar in-charge of APJ Abdul

Kalam Technological University, the 1st respondent, has filed a counter

affidavit, offering his explanation to the contempt petition, and prayed

to exonerate him from the Contempt of Court proceedings. Reasons

assigned in the counter affidavit are as hereunder:-

"4. The above order was issued by this Hon'ble Court directing the University to ascertain pass percentage of the petitioner college after verifying the details of the regular students in the petitioner college. According to the petitioner college, the regular students for 2015-2019 B.Tech. Engineering course, who attended the college was only 332 and it was further alleged that the University had closed down certain colleges and thereafter the students who were students of the said colleges were allowed to appear for the examinations conducted in the petitioner college by allotting the students exam centers. Thus according to the petitioner college, out the 332 students, who alone were the regular students of the college, 186 students have passed and

IN WA. 1586/2020

hence the pass percentage of the petitioner college for 2015-2019 batch was 56.2%. This Hon'ble court directed the University to scrupulously verify the above details and issue appropriate orders within two days from 22/12/2020. As per the above order, this Hon'ble Court further directed the Standing Counsel for the University to communicate the above order to the University to act forthwith without insisting for a copy of the order.

5. As directed by this Hon'ble Court, the standing Counsel for the University intimated the order of this Hon'ble Court to myself on 22/12/2020 itself through telephone and further informed me to verify the details of the regular students who appeared for the exams in the petitioner college and whether the students who appeared for the exams beyond 332 were allotted examination centers in the petitioner college or not.

6. It is submitted that immediately on receipt of the above communication on 22/12/2020, the University took steps to verify the details of the students as directed by this Hon'ble Court. On verification of the regular students of the petitioners college, it was found that the averments made by the petitioner college in the affidavit was not correct. After meticulously verifying the records, the University prepared a report within two days on 24.12.2020 itself, as directed by this Hon'ble Court and the report was sent to the Standing Counsel. The said report prepared and forwarded to the Standing Counsel on 24/12/2020 has been produced as Annexure R1 (a) in IA No. 1/2021 in WA No 1586/2020 on 08-01-2021 after serving a copy of the same to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that though the

IN WA. 1586/2020

above report was prepared 24/12/2020, within 2 days as directed by this Hon'ble Court, due to an inadvertent omission, the University failed to communicate the said order to the petitioner college. It is respectfully submitted that since on 22-12 2020, this Hon'ble Court had closed for X'mas vacation, Annexure R1(a) report could not be produced before this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that on 11.1.2021 when the copy of contempt court case was received, it came to my notice that there was an omission on my part to forward the report to the petitioner college and immediately Annexure R1(a) report was forwarded to the petitioner college

7. I may be permitted to state that I am presently holding the post of Joint Director in the University. I was given additional charge as Registrar on 17.08.2020 due to the relieving of the former Registrar. Hence, I was primarily entrusted with the responsibilities of Joint director with additional responsibilities as Registrar (in charge), I am overloaded with many crucial academic and examination related with responsibilities as Joint Director in addition to serving as the Registrar in Charge, during this period of December 2020 to Jan 2021.

8 It is submitted that as per First Statutes promulgated on 5.8.2020, the period of appointment of the persons officiating in the posts of Director, Joint Director, Joint Director (Student Affairs) and Assistant Director should be terminated on 31.01.2021. Therefore, the Registrar has to take steps for reappointments of all directors/joint directors/assistant directors etc. before 31.01.2021. It is submitted that being the Registrar in

IN WA. 1586/2020

Charge of the University, it is my responsibility to see that the examination of PG and Degree examinations are held systematically without any objection whatsoever. Further, it is submitted that the first year B Tech admissions of more than 25,000 students were to be completed in all the 135 affiliated colleges before 30.12.2020 as per AICTE directions. Hence this deponent was very busy involved in the matter of admissions to B.Tech course. Besides, the publication of results of the semester examinations in a time bound manner is also the responsibility of the Joint Director (this deponent). Because of this hectic work, this deponent omitted to forward the copy of the report to the petitioner college.

9. It is submitted that the omission to communicate Annexure R1 (a) report to the petitioner college was not willful or deliberate, but it is due to the oversight induced by the work pressure as cited above, that such inadvertent omission occurred. I have utmost respect and reverence to this Hon'ble Court and never ever intended to violate the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, but the failure to communicate the order as directed by this Hon'ble Court was not willful, and the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner is deeply regretted."

3. Though the Registrar in-charge of APJ Abdul Kalam

Technological University, the 1st respondent, has sought for

exonerating him from the Contempt of Court proceedings, it is only

due to the delay in communicating the report of the University,

IN WA. 1586/2020

petitioner has been constrained to file a Contempt of Court case,

incurring unnecessary expenditure.

For the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, we are not

inclined to proceed against the respondent, under the provisions of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, we deem it fit to impose a

reasonable cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid towards the litigation

expenses incurred by the petitioner, within a period of one month from