Kerala High Court

Jessal Varghese vs Dr. G.P. Padmakumar on 23 July, 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                  CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 32116/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF
                         KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          JESSAL VARGHESE
          AGED 21 YEARS
           S/O. D. VARGHESE,3RD YEAR STUDENT,
          B.TECH(AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING) SCMS SCHOOL OF
          ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,KARUKUTTY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
          RESIDING AT NEELWSWARAM P.O,KALADY, ERNAKULAM

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
          KUM.A.ARUNA
          KUM.THULASI K. RAJ



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    DR. G.P. PADMAKUMAR
         FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
         PETITIONER,
         REGISTRAR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
         CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34

    2    PROF. (DR). J.LETHA
         FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
         PETITIONER,
         VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
         UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34

    3    DR. S. SHABU
         FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
         PETITIONER,
         CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,
         APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,CET CAMPUS,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018
                                    -2-



     4       SHRI M.R UNNI
             FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,
             REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
             PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 560

     5       DR. BABU SEBASTIAN
             FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,
             VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
             PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 560

     6       DR. THOMAS JOHN MAMPRA
             FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,
             CONTROLL OF EXAMINATIONS,
             MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O,
             KOTTAYAM 686 560

     7       PROF. M. MADHAVAN
             FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER,
             PRINCIPAL,
             SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
             KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.


             R1 TO R3 - SRI.ELVIN PETER
             R4 TO R6 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,
             R7 - SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI




         THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION      ON     23.07.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018
                                          -3-



                                   JUDGMENT

This contempt petition is filed complaining

that the directives contained in the judgment dated

09.11.2017 are not complied with.

2. The subject issue relates to the B.Tech

(Electronics & Communications)course pursued by the

petitioners in the SCMS College of Engineering,

Karukutty, Ernakulam. The complex situation that

lead to the filing of the writ petition arose

consequent to the formation of the APJ Abdul Kalam

Technological University vis-a-vis the students who

have not completed their semesters within the time

period prescribed under the University Act and the

laws, and who were pursuing their studies in

institutions under the Mahatma Gandhi University.

Therefore the following directions were issued by

this Court, taking into account the judgment of

this Court in Nanditha.T.K. v.APJ Adbul Kalam

Technological University and Other [2017(4)KHC CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018

539].

"4. In my considered opinion, the issue raised in these writ petitions are also squarely covered as per the proposition of law laid down in the aforequoted judgment. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment. It is also brought to the notice of the respective Universities that, the judgment in Nanditha. T.K. is followed by the very same Division Bench in Nandu Narayan.S. v. University of Kerala and others in Writ Appeal No.1755/2017 dated 23.8.2017 and the said judgment shall also be taken note of.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respective Universities to comply with the directions contained in the judgments in Nanditha. T.K.(supra) and take necessary consequential actions accordingly."

3. The case projected by the petitioner in

the contempt petition is that, the direction issued

by this Court was not complied with by the

University and therefore there is contumacious and

deliberate act on the part of the respondents to

proceed under the provisions of the Contempt of

Courts Act,1971. Anyhow, during the pendency of

this contempt petition, the Mahatma Gandhi

University has introduced an order permitting to

admit those students so as to enable them to

complete the semesters.

 CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018




      4.     I     am        informed      by     the       learned    counsel

appearing        for         the   7th    respondent         i.e.     the    SCMS

College, Karukutty that, many of the students have

joined in the college after paying the required

fees and have completed their studies. However the

petitioner in this contempt petition has failed to

pay fees, participate in the classes and sit for

the examinations and therefore, there is no

deliberate attempt on the part of the college or

the other authorities to comply with the directions

contained in the judgment.

5. The 7th respondent has filed a detailed

affidavit enumerating the details in respect of the

directions issued by this Court as well as the

developments that have taken place subsequent to

the orders passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University

permitting the students like the petitioners to

participate in the semester process, irrespective

of the formation of the APJ Abdul Kalam

Technological University. The said affidavit reads CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018

thus:-

1. The 7th respondent in this Contempt of Court Case is the erstwhile Principal of the institution who is no more a part of this institution. I am well conversant with the facts of the case and also competent to swear this affidavit.

2. The above contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that there has been a willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the direction of this Hon'ble Court in the Judgement dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32116 of 2017 of this Hon'ble Court by the respondents in refusing to conduct VI Semester classes for the petitioner as per the curriculum of M.G. University for B.Tech Course (Automobile Engineering).

3. This Hon'ble Court had via its common Judgement dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32116 of 2017 and connected cases directed the respondents to allow the petitioner and similarly situated petitioners of connected cases to continue with their respective courses under the rules and regulations applicable to them when they first took the admission to their respective courses and also to facilitate the examinations process until the end of their period of study, as per the applicable rules and regulations.

4. In compliance of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court, M.G. University had directed via its order dated 22.01.2018 to allow the following students, among others, re-admission to attend classes and appear for examinations:

1. Karthik B.

2. Sreeraj S.

3. Shahsadh Mohammed P.K.

4. Sreehari R.

5. Vivek Vijayan K.P.

6. Jessal Varghese The True copy of the Order No. 532/1/AIV/Academic/2018 issued by M.G. University dated 22.01.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1.

5. In the above circumstances, it is pertinent to bring to CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018

the kind attention of this Hon'ble Court to the events that have transpired since then, to prove that there has been no willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the direction of this Hon'ble Court's Judgement on the part of this respondent in refusing to conduct VI Semester classes for this petitioner.

6. From among the above-listed students, Karthik B. (1 st petitioner in W.P.(C) 32021/17), Sreeraj S. (2 nd petitioner in W.P.(C) 32021/17), Sreehari R. (1st petitioner in W.P.(C) 32071/17) and Shahasadh Mohamed P.K. (3rd petitioner in W.P.(C) 32071/17) had been allowed to continue with their course and they have all attended classes and completed their B.Tech. course from SCMS School of Engineering & Technology.

7. Mr. Vivek Vijayan (2nd Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 32071/17) had taken Transfer Certificate from the respondent college for joining another course.

8. So far as the petitioner of this contempt case is concerned, he had taken admission in NRI quota in SCMS and had only paid fees for the 1st and 2nd year on 14.08.2014 and 30.09.2015, respectively. As per the usual practice every student is to deposit the fee in advance for the academic year, however this respondent permits its students to deposit the fee within any time during the academic year with fine. The contempt petitioner herein did not deposit the fees for the 3 rd year i.e, the V and VI semester, but he was permitted to attend classes. Even then the petitioner was irregular and did not achieve the minimum attendance as per the University norms. Accordingly he was declared ineligible for promotion to the final year.

9. Thereafter, in compliance to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court this respondent had organized repeat courses for the petitioner herein and the similarly placed persons hereinabove mentioned. The other students had cleared all the arrear fees, but the petitioner herein refused to pay the fee for the 3 rd year. Hence the petitioner was not permitted to continue with the CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018

classes because of the non-payment of fee which was due for the 3rd year (V and VI semesters) onwards. Payment of fee is an important factor for the continuation of the course. The college will not be able function if the determined fee is not paid by the students attending its classes. Allowing the petitioner to continue with classes even without the payment of fees cannot be read out from the directions of this Hon'ble Court's aforementioned judgement. Had this petitioner made payment of fees, he would have been allowed to continue with his course, just like the other petitioners.

10. In the instant case, the petitioner's unwillingness to remit the necessary fee, which is a pre-requisite for the continuation of any course in any institution, was the reason why he isn't continuing with the classes and the same cannot be regarded as contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order. Hence, the petitioner's allegation is tenuous and is without any bonafide and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Court may be pleased to quash this contempt case foisted on me as it is without any substance and bonafide. Otherwise, I will be put to irreparable injury, hardship and loss."

6. Infact learned counsel for the petitioner

himself submitted that, the petitioner could not

pursue his studies due to financial difficulties.

7. Taking into account the abovesaid aspects,

and the developments that have taken place, I am of

the considered view that, there is no deliberate or CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018

willful act on the part of the respondents in not

complying with the directions issued by this Court

enabling this Court to proceed under the provisions

of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Needless to

say contempt fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-