AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Viju Abraham , J
The above writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext P9 order issued by the 1st respondent, whereby two courses were sanctioned in favour of the 4th respondent institute, as per Ext P9 order.
Petitioner is the manager of ‘Ideal Technical Institute’ located in Perambra Grama Panchayat which was started in the year 2002. The 4th respondent institute is functioning at a distance of only 700 meters away from the petitioner’s institute. Ext P6 Government order is in respect of sanctioning of new KGCE institution, which mandates that in rural area/panchayat KGCE institution shall not be sanctioned with an approximate distance of 5 kms from an existing institute. Based on the said Government order it is contended that the 4th respondent is functioning in violation of the conditions contained in the said Government order.
While so, the 4th respondent attempted to commence new KGCE courses in Civil Engineering and Automobile Engineering. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner submitted Ext P7 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting not to allow starting of new courses by the 4th respondent in Civil Engineering and Automobile Engineering as it will adversely affect the functioning of the institution run by the petitioner. Pursuant to the same the Joint Director conducted an inspection in both the institutes and Ext P8 report has been submitted. Petitioner contend that the Government has entrusted the Kerala Statistical Institute to conduct a detailed study of KGCE institutions and the said institute has recommended that strict adherence of distance norms of 10 kms in Panchayats, 5 kms in Municipalities and 3 kms in Corporations may be ensured in case of sanction of a new institution/course. Petitioner submits that by exerting undue influence on the Government, the 4th respondent managed to obtain Ext P9 order whereby two courses were sanctioned having 30 seats capacity in civil engineering and automobile engineering. Petitioner based on Ext P6 order by which a distance criteria has been fixed for starting of a new institution, submits that the 4th respondent is functioning in violation of the same. Petitioner has a further contention that in Ext P12 inspection report in connection with grant of sanction of two courses to the 4th respondent, only existence of ITI Perambra was mentioned and the name of the petitioner’s institution is not mentioned.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in which it is contended that he has started the institute in 2004. A survey was conducted by the Higher Education Department through the Kerala Statistical Institute in respect of the KGCE institutions, and a report has been submitted. Government has later come up with Ext R4(e) Government order wherein there is no restriction provided regarding any distance criteria for sanctioning of a new institute/course. A perusal of Ext P9 would reveal that two courses have been sanctioned based on Ext R4(e) Government order.
4th respondent further submits that on an application submitted by him under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the distance criteria in granting permission for additional KGCE courses in a running institution, a reply was given vide Ext R4(4) wherein it is intimated that no such distance criteria has been fixed. It is contended that though by Ext R4(2) Government order Government decided to restructure the KGCE courses in the State from the academic year 2019-20 onwards, Government did not prescribed any distance criteria in the said order, and thereupon by Ext P9, courses were sanctioned to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent also relies on Ext R4(5) judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 13014/2022 in support of his contentions.
The 2nd respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that in Ext R4(2) Government order dated 08.05.2019, none of the recommendation of the Kerala Statistical Institute regarding the distance restriction is seen reflected. It is also submitted that it is based on Ext R2(d) and R2(e) reports that the Government decided to grant sanction for two courses as per Ext P9 order.
The question to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether an additional course could be granted to an institute violating the distance norms as provided in Ext P6 Government order. A perusal of Ext P6 would reveal that the said Government order is regarding sanction of a new KGCE institution wherein a distance criteria of 5 kms was fixed in rural/Panchayat area for starting a new institute. Admittedly the petitioner’s institute was established in the year 2002 and that of the 4th respondent in 2004, but no complaint whatsoever was raised based on Ext P6 against the sanction of a new institute in favour of the 4th respondent. Petitioner has raised objection only when an additional course have been sanctioned to the 4th respondent. In view of the fact that Ext P6 Government order is dated 2002 and that the 4th respondent has started the institution in the year 2004 and further that till date no challenge has been made regarding the sanctioning of the 4th respondent institute, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner based on Ext P6, especially when Ext P6 only refers to starting of a new institute and not grant of additional courses in an existing institution. Even though the petitioner relies on the report submitted by the statistical institute as directed by the Government to study into the existing KGCE institutions, while Government issued Ext R4(2) order no distance criteria has been fixed in the said order. Furthermore, Exts R4(3) and R4(4) would reveal that no distance criteria has been fixed in respect of starting of additional courses in an existing institution in a Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation. Though Ext R4(5) judgment in WP(C) No. 13014/2022 is in respect of an institute which is working in an urban area for which no distance criteria has been fixed as per Ext P6, this Court refering to Ext P7, which is the new Government order, produced as Ext R4(2) in this writ petition, has entered a finding that no distance criteria has been fixed against sanctioning of a new course within 5 kms of the existing institution.
In view of the discussion as above, I find no reason to interfere with Ext P9 order and the above writ petition is accordingly dismissed.