AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first Respondent in Na.Ka. No. 46316/F2/2009, dated
1.8.2011.
Heard Mr. K.N. Thampi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. TR. Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the
Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. F.X. Eugene, Learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent.
By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
By an order, dated 01.03.2011, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD). Nos. 359 and 360 of 2010, set aside the proceedings and
remanded the matter to the Director of Collegiate Education, to consider the claim of the Petitioner afresh and that was considered and final order
was passed, on 24.05.2011, in favour of the writ Petitioner. Thereafter, at the behest of the third Respondent, who filed a representation on
30.05.2011, the impugned notice has been issued by the Director of Collegiate Education, calling upon the Petitioner to appear for enquiry to
review the order already passed in favour of the Petitioner. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition has been filed.
Notice of motion was ordered. The third Respondent appeared before this Court and filed an application to vacate the interim order passed by
this Court.
At the outset, the third Respondent and the official Respondents were asked to justify the notice after passing of the final order and in response,
it was conceded that there is No. power to review. The authority has become functus officio and therefore, the question of reviewing the order
does not arise. The Act does not empower the authority to review the order passed u/s 7 of the Act.
Therefore, Learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent has pleaded that the third Respondent will prosecute the matter before the
Government in terms of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976, by way of revision.
In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside and accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The third Respondent is entitled to pursue
his remedy in accordance with law. The vacate stay petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD). Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 is closed. No. costs.