Soorya Gayathri S vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1471 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1471 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2022

Kerala High Court

Soorya Gayathri S vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2022

WP(C) NO. 3446 OF 2022            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
  WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 3446 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

          SOORYA GAYATHRI S.,
          AGED 19 YEARS,
          D/O. LOLA K.B., KRISHNA KRIPA,
          PACHALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
          PIN - 682 012.

          BY ADV T.N.SREEKALA



RESPONDENTS :

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2     MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
          PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560.

    3     SREE NARAYANA LAW COLLEGE
          PUTHENKAVU, POOTHOTTA P.O.,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 307,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

    4     GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE
          MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.



          BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC
          SRI. ARUN AJAY SHANKER, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3446 OF 2022                     2



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that she is pursuing her 3rd semester BBA LLB

(Honours) course in the Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta, a private self

financing college, affiliated with the M.G. University. She states that she has

preferred Ext.P1 application before the 2nd respondent seeking intercollegiate

transfer of the seat from Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta to Government

Law College, Ernakulam. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application

has not been considered to date. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner

is before this Court seeking directions.

2. When this matter was taken up, Smt. Sreekala T.N., the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, for the time being, the

petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 2nd respondent to

consider Ext.P1 and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University

submitted that the University has already passed Ext.P2 general order.

However, it is submitted that if the limited request of the petitioner is for an

expeditious consideration of Ext.P1, on its merits, they would not stand in the

way.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances,

I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the

following directions:

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions

made in the representation there will be a direction to the 2nd

respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P1, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either

physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised

representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of one month from the date of production of

a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent

for further action.