Kerala High Court
Mohammd Rahmathulla vs Calicut University on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
MOHAMMD RAHMATHULLA
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.V.P.MOHAMMED, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HORIZON OF KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT TRAINING LLC, SHARJAH UAE, (NOW CLOSED) (NOW
RESIDING AT AMEN RESIDENCY, KUKALLINGAL, KAVANOOR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM-673 639).
BY ADV M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
CALICUT UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673 635.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P C SASIDHARAN SC CALICUT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Ext.P4 decision dated 13.8.2020 of the respondent
University is under challenge. The petitioner started Horizon
of Knowledge Management Training LLC on 25.1.2007 at
Jamal Abdul Nazzer Street at Majaz Area in Sharjah UAE. As
per the law existed in UAE, in order to start centre, it was
necessary to have a local partner to function in the main land
of UAE. So the petitioner included one Sahik Khalid Bin
Ahamed Bin Sultan Al Quasimi, Deputy Ruler of Sharjah as a
silent partner. The object of the company mentioned in the
licence was to provide management programmes in different
discipline as evidenced from Ext.P1. After starting the centre,
tpetitioner came to the know that the respondent was
permitting to open centres in Middle East to promote distance
Education Programme and submitted an application for
seeking permission to operate its programme and signed a
MOU with the respondent as the Managing Director of the
centre.
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
2. The respondent approved Horizon knowledge a
Management training study centre at Sharjah in 2008-2009
academic year. A refundable caution deposit of 5000 dollar in
2013, was deposited. It was was transferred through Al-
ansari exchange from the personal account of the petitioner.
3. Respondent directed all centers which were
functioning outside the jurisdiction to stop the programmes
and as regards the refund, after having taken legal opinion
and given opportunity, found that the petitioner did not give
the proof and rejected the same. The impugned order does
not take into consideration the contents of Ext.P1 as well as
a communication from the silent partner ie, Shaik Khalid Bin
Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi, Ext.P5 wherein no objection
was given.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the Calicut University submitted that the petitioner did not
produce any document evidencing the dissolution of the
Centre which was in his ownership or otherwise, other than
the copy of the passport and an Arabic document issued by
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
the Ministry of Interior-General Directorate of Residence and
Foreign Affairs, UAE in which his occupation was shown as
Investor and Sponsor, Horizon of Knowledge Management
Training LLC.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book. On examination of the translation
of Ext.P1, Shaik Khalid Bin Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi
was silent partner and investor name was shown as
Mohammed Rahmathulla Valiyaparambath ie., the petitioner.
A professional licence was issued in his name which was
converted into limited liability. The other investor Shaik
Khalid Bin Ahamad Bin Sultan Al Quasimi had already given a
no objection as per the communication Ext.P5. The relevant
portion of the same reads as under:
"I have no objection to refund the caution deposit to
Mr.Mohammed Rahmathulla Valiyaparambath who now
resides in India because the centre closed due to direction
from the University. Also request to refund the same in his
bank account in India."
The impugned order Ext.P4 do not reflect the reference
of contents Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P5 but gone in the arena of
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
surmises and conjectures by giving an opaque finding that
there was no proof. The laws of UAE are well known
whereby for opening any centre by an outsider, a local
permanent resident of UAE is required to be included as a
silent partner. The action of the respondent University in not
refunding the amount is wholly erroneous and fallacious.
Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to
refund the caution deposit into the account of the petitioner
within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 11892 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11892/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE SIGNED BY UNITED
ARAB EMIRATES GOVERNMENT OF SHARJAH DATED
25.01.2007.
Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLAITON OF
EXT.P1.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANELLATIION OF VISA
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF HORIZON OF
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TRAINING LLC DATED
10.03.2015.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.UO
NO.2231/2019/ADMN. DATED 11.02.2019
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.UO
NO.7475/2020/ADMN. DATED 13.08.2020
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF E MAIL SENT
BY SHAIK KHALID BIN AHAMAD BIN SULTAN AL
QUASIMI PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER STATING
THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO REFUND THE
CAUTION DEPOSIT TO PETITIONER.
