Kerala High Court

Anupa Rose Sham vs The Vice Chancellor on 23 June, 2022

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 20485 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ANUPA ROSE SHAM
          AGED 21 YEARS
          D/O JOSEPH SHAM, KURISINGAL HOUSE 10/ 1506,
          AMARAVATHI SOUTH, THAMARAPARAMBU,
          FORT KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 001.
          BY ADVS.
          T.S.SARATH
          MANU RAMACHANDRAN
          M.KIRANLAL
          R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
          SAMEER M NAIR
          GEETHU KRISHNAN
          HARSHA SUSAN SAM


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE VICE CHANCELLOR
          COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT
          UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
    2     THE REGISTRAR,
          COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT
          UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT - 682 022.
    3     COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
          KUNJALI MARAKKAR SCHOOL OF MARINE ENGINEERING,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CUSAT UNIVERSITY ROAD,
          SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
    4     DR.N.P.JOHN,
          DIRECTOR, KUNJALI MARAKKAR SCHOOL OF MARINE
          ENGINEERING, CUSAT UNIVERSITY ROAD,
          SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
    5     INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE,
          REPRESENTED BY DR.DEEPA G.NAIR, CUSAT, CUSAT
          UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
    6     BINISHA T.P,
          STUDENT, 5TH SEMESTER, KUNJALI MARAKKAR SCHOOL OF
          MARINE ENGINEERING, CUSAT UNIVERSITY ROAD,
 WP(C) NO. 20485 OF 2022         2

          SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
    7     ROY V. PAUL,
          ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, CUSAT
          UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT - 682 022.
    8     HARIKRISHNAN,
          PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
          KUNJALI MARAKKAR SCHOOL OF MARINE ENGINEERING,
          CUSAT UNIVERSITY ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 022.
OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY-SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20485 OF 2022          3

                           JUDGMENT

The limited relief sought for by the petitioner in this case -

on the edifice of the various averments and allegations - is that

the 1st respondent - Vice Chancellor of the Cochin University of

Science and Technology (CUSAT) be directed to take up Ext.P12

appeal and dispose it of, without any further delay. She also prays

that, until such time as the Vice Chancellor disposes of the

Appeal, all action on Ext.P8 be ordered to be deferred.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the CUSAT -

Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai, in response to the afore submissions of

Sri.T.S.Sarath - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

if the petitioner only requires the Vice Chancellor to take up

Ext.P12 Appeal and decide upon it, he will not stand in the way of

appropriate orders being issued; however, praying that this Court

may not make any affirmative declarations in her favour and

allow the said Authority to take an apposite decision thereon as

per law.

3. Obviously, therefore, this Court will be justified in

ordering as afore.

4. However, before I do so, this Court is aware that the

petitioner has an adscititious contention against Ext.P10 which is

an order issued by the Director of the College on a different

allegation that the petitioner was late to report to the hostel on

15.06.2022. Though this order has not been specifically

challenged, the petitioner has sought an interim direction against

it and her learned counsel argues that it has been issued as a

fallout of the earlier allegations against her, which had led to

Ext.P8.

5. The said order indicates that the petitioner did not come

to the hostel by 8:30 PM, which is the deadline; and that the

explanation offered by her for not doing so, namely that she met

with an accident on that day, was not convincing.

6. I notice from Ext.P10 that the afore explanation of the

petitioner has not been accepted and found not convincing

because the petitioner had not reported the alleged accident to

the Police. Though I do not propose to speak on the merits of this,

it is rather strange that the Director has, without any enquiry,

sought to impose a punishment on the petitioner, asking her to

report to the hostel at 6:00 PM on all days for two weeks from

16.06.2022 to 30.06.2022. One does not understand why this

punishment was imposed, as would have been done by a school in

the case of minor children. The inmates of the hostel are all

adults, though I am fully aware that the petitioner has chosen not

to challenge the deadline of 8:30 PM to enter the hostel.

7. I am persuaded to the afore view also because the only

reason why the Director says that the petitioner's explanation is

not convincing is because she did not report the alleged accident

to the Police Station.

8. I am afraid that this is slightly harsh on the petitioner

because she is stated to have been riding a scooter and to be

alone at the time when she says she met with the accident. Unless

it is compelling, it is common knowledge that citizens don't rush

to the Police Station to make a report, particularly in our State.

Therefore, the mere factum of the accident not having been

reported to a Police Station could not have been used against the

petitioner, especially when, as I have already said above, no

enquiry was initiated or concluded.

9. For such reasons, even though Ext.P10 has not been

assailed by the petitioner, I am of the view that she is entitled to

relief with respect to it also, especially when the interim order

sought is against its continued operation.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition with the following

directions:

(a) The Vice Chancellor will take up Ext.P12 appeal and

decide it, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as

expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and

the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all action

pursuant to Ext.P8 will stand deferred and will be thereafter

continued, if so warranted, based on such decision.

however, leaving full liberty to him to take necessary action

against the petitioner, if so required, after following due

procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being

heard to her.

(d) It is clarified that until such time as the deadline for

entering the hostel is not modified as per law, the petitioner will

be obligated to abide by the same, notwithstanding the above

observations.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/Raj

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 19.01.2022 WHICH WAS CIRCULATED IN UNOFFICIAL GROUP. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 115/22 OF POLICE STATION OF KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT DATED 22.01.2022 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2021.

Exhibit P3(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2022.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2022.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2022.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 A MEMO DATED 10.06.2022 WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 16.06.2022 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 16.06.2022 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL DIARY NO. 15-

16/06/2022 OF THE KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 17.06.2022.