Kerala High Court
Principal, Muslim Association College ... vs Kerala State Youth Commission on 23 May, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4862 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
PRINCIPAL,
MUSLIM ASSOCIATION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE YOUTH COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.
2 RIYAS P. NAZAR,
S/O P. NAZAR,
PALAYAM PARAMBIL, VATTAKAYAM,
ERATTUPETTA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN (FOR R2)
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SMT.J.KASTHURI
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI
SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
SRI.VENUGOPAL V. (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.4862/2015 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Principal of the Muslim
Association College of Engineering, Venjaramoodu,
Thiruvananthapuram. Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against four students of the College, including
the 2nd respondent, in the year 2014. The students were
expelled from the College and they were issued with
Transfer Certificates. The students approached the 1st
respondent by filing a complaint. However, the same
was pursued only by the 2nd respondent. The 1st
respondent, by Ext.P4 proceedings, issued 'directions' to
the College for permitting the 2nd respondent to continue
studies, and if the 2nd respondent voluntarily accepts the
expulsion, to refund an amount of Rs. 35,000/-, which is
the tuition fee paid for the 7th and 8th semesters.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that a perusal of the provisions of the Kerala
State Youth Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') and in particular Sections 9 and 10 would
indicate that the 1st respondent has no authority to issue
any direction as in Ext.P4.
3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
would submit that the 2nd respondent had been expelled
from the 1st respondent College without any just cause or
reason and therefore the 1st respondent was well within
its authority in making recommendations/directions as
contained in Ext.P4 proceedings.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, I am of the view
that the authority of the 1st respondent under the
provisions of the Act does not extend to the issuance of
any recommendations/directions as contained in Ext.P4
order. A perusal of the functions of the Commission in
Section 9 of the Act and the powers of the Commission
under Section 10 of the Act would indicate that under
Section 10(4) of the Act, the 1st respondent can only
communicate to the Government its recommendations
for appropriate action or relief to the parties in the
dispute. A reading of Ext.P4 will indicate that certain
recommendations/directions have been issued to the
petitioner. The 1st respondent has no authority to do so.
In such circumstances, the writ petition is only to be
allowed. In the result Ext.P4 is quashed. Writ petition is
ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4862/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WPC NO.22303/2014 DATED 26.9.2014
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.302/A2/2014/KSYC
DATED 4.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPOPNDENT ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED NIL
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.302/A2/14/KSYC OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2014
