Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner, which is an Educational Trust, alleges that the Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G. University) is refusing to grant affiliation to their Training College (B.Ed), merely because they say that they are waiting for the “views” of the Government.

Sri.Kurain George Kannanthanam – learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.P.M.Saneer, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that even if the Government withholds its view, or makes a negative recommendation, it is not binding upon the University and that they have to take a decision on his client's application, going by the various judgments of this Court including in State of Kerala v. M.G.M. College of Arts and Science [2017(3) KLT 779]. He, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

Interestingly, Sri.K.B.Ramanand – learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that the Government has already forwarded their views to the University and that it is opposing the request of the petitioner.

Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University, submitted that it is true that his client had referred the matter to the Government for their views and that if the same has been received, a decision on the application of the petitioner can be taken without any avoidable delay.

In reply, Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam – learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the afore casual attitude of the M.G.University is deleterious because, Ext.P7 letter issued by them would clearly show that they have recommended his client's application and forwarded it to the Government for their views. He submitted that, therefore, once the University had made a recommendation, it would not be for them to resile from it, merely because the “views” of the Government may be to the contrary. He then added that even going by the “views” of the Government, they only say that they do not intend to start a new College, but that this would not stand in the University granting affiliation to his client.

When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, it is indubitable that various judgments of this Court has settled the forensic purlieus that the University is not bound by the “views” of the Government, though they certainly can consider it, while evaluating the applications for affiliation.

That being said, since the learned Senior Government Pleader says that the “views” of the Government have been sent to the University, it is certainly upto the latter to take a decision on the petitioner's application without any further delay.

I am persuaded to fix a very short time frame for this because Sri.Kurian George Kannanathanam – learned Senior Counsel, points out that the last date for making admission to the new course is 25.10.2022.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the M.G.University to hear the petitioner and take a decision on their application for affiliation; culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 21.10.2022.

The interim order earlier granted by this Court on 07.10.2022 will abide by the decision to be taken by the University as afore.

It also goes without saying that I have not considered any of the rival contentions on its merits and that all of them are left open, while the afore exercise is completed.