Lisha V.S vs Principal Secretary

Viju Abraham, J

The above review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No.28254 of 2022. The main thrust of argument raised seeking review of the judgment is that Annexure-A1 Government Order dated 05.08.2005 whereby Ext.P6 Government Order dated 17.09.2002 has been modified could not be brought to the notice of the Court while passing the judgment under review. Petitioner also further submits that even at the time when the 4th respondent attempted to start an institution violating the distance norms, Annexure-A2 complaint dated 06.05.2005 has been preferred by the petitioner before the Government and the said aspect also could not be brought to the notice of the Court while the judgment under review was passed.

The question to be examined is as to whether the non-consideration of Annexures-A1 and A2 would substantially affect the ultimate decision made in the judgment dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No.28254 of 2022. Ext.P6 order was issued on 17.09.2002 whereby the norms were fixed in respect of starting new institutions imparting technical education in which it is stated that to encourage healthy competition it was decided not to suggest any minimum distance between K.G.C.E. institutions in urban areas and in rural area/Panchayat, K.G.C.E. institutions shall not be sanctioned within an approximate distance of 5 kms. The stipulation that in rural area/Panchayat, K.G.C.E. institutions shall not be sanctioned within an approximate distance of 5 kms. was sought to be amended or rather modified by Annexure-A1 order whereby it is stipulated that after the words “K.G.C.E. institutions” in condition No.2 in Ext.P6 the words “offering same subject” should be inserted. So by issuance of Annexure-A1 order the stipulations in Ext.P6 have in fact been relaxed whereby the total ban of sanctioning a new institute in rural area/Panchayat within an approximate distance of 5 kms was modified to the effect that no institution offering same subject shall be sanctioned within an approximate distance of 5 kms. of an existing institute.

The issue involved in the writ petition is as to whether the 4th respondent could be allowed to start a new course and as to whether the distance criteria stipulated in Ext.P6 will apply in the case of the 4th respondent. By Ext.R4(4) reply given by the Directorate of Technical Education it was specifically answered that no distance criteria is fixed for starting of a new course. The Government has also examined the study report submitted by the Kerala Statistical Institute in consultation with the Director of Technical Education while issuing Ext.R4(2) order whereby guidelines were issued for restructuring the K.G.C.E. course in the State from the academic year 2019-2020, which prescribed no distance criteria. Therefore in the judgment under review this Court has entered a finding that Ext.P6 relied on by the petitioner is only in respect of starting of a new course and that the Government while issuing guidelines for starting of new institution/course no distance criteria has been prescribed. Admittedly the 4th respondent has started the institute as early as in 2004. I have held in the judgment dated 27.06.2023 that starting of the course by the 4th respondent in 2004 cannot be challenged at this distance of time relying on Ext.P6 Government Order.

In view of the same I find that non-consideration of Annexures-A1 and A2 will not in any way impact the decision taken in W.P.(C) No.28254 of 2022. In view of the same I find no reason to review the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28254 of 2022 and the above review petition is accordingly dismissed.