Ameer.M vs The State Of Kerala on 1 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35564 of 2008(H)


1. AMEER.M, S/O.ALAVI.M, AGED 18 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE

3. THE PRINCIPAL, M.E.A ENGINEERING

4. THE PRINCIPAL, K.S.D-L.B.S COLLEGE OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.RAMADAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :01/07/2009

 O R D E R
                            S. SIRI JAGAN, J
                  ...............................................
                    W.P.(C) No. 35564 of 2008
                 .................................................
              Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following

reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 3rd
respondent to issue transfer certificate and other
documents of the petitioner forthwith, without any further
delay;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 4th
respondent to keep one seat in the course – Information
Technology – vacant, till the petitioner gets transfer
certificate and other documents from the 3rd respondent
college;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the
respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the 3rd
respondent for the non-issuance of transfer certificate to
the petitioner;”

On 11.12.2008 this court passed the following interim

order in this writ petition.

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Babu
S. Nair and Sri. R.Ramadas, learned counsel appearing for
the third respondent. Counter affidavit has been filed by
the third respondent. The stand taken by the third
respondent is that the Commissioner is not entitled to
accept higher option of a student after the second
allotment. He refers to clause 3 in Ext.R3(a) agreement
executed in this behalf between the Kerala Self Financing

W.P.(C) No. 35564 of 2008 -2-

Engineering College Managements’ Association and the
State. The third respondent submits that Ext.P5, the
allotment made by the Commissioner on 22.10.2008 is
illegal.

2. I am of the view that it is not open to the third
respondent to collaterally challenge Ext.P5. There are no
other circumstances pointed out to refuse to issue the
transfer certificate of the student concerned.

3. Sri. Ramdas submits that the student is bound to
pay liquidated damages to the institution for an amount
equivalent to the entire fees which he otherwise would
have paid, had he completed four years of study. But it is
admitted that a bond or any other form of security has not
been furnished by the student. If the college is entitled to
recover any damages from the student, then it is open to
the college to pursue such a course of action. Accordingly,
there will be a direction to the third respondent to issue to
the petitioner the transfer certificate and other documents,
as directed in Ext.P5 on or before 16.12.2008. It is made
clear that immediately thereupon the petitioner shall
present himself before the 4th respondent college and the
4th respondent shall be bound to admit the petitioner if the
petitioner presents himself on or before 19.12.2008.”

Now it is submitted by both sides that pursuant to the

interim order, Transfer Certificate has been issued and therefore

the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the interim

order. Ordered accordingly. However, I make it clear that the

claim of the 3rd respondent for liquidated damages is left open to

be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs