Noorul Islam College Of Dental … vs The State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9416 of 2009(V)


1. NOORUL ISLAM COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY & FEE REGULATORY

3. VANI.B.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

4. THASNEEM.S.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

5. SHEBA SUSAN JOSE,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

6. ISHA MUHAMMED,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

7. NAMLA.P.M.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

8. RESMI RAMESH,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

9. RENJINI.S.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

10. SUMAYYA.A.NAZAR,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

11. SRUTHI UNNI,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

12. DILEEP.P.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

13. VISHNURAJ.R.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

14. VIKAS.N.SEKHAR,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

15. REMYA.R.S.,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

16. REMYA MOHAN,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

17. SARIGA BRAHMANADAN,2ND YEAR BDS STUDENT,

18. VEENA NAGAPPAN.N.K.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/03/2009

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                 ---------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.9416 OF 2009
               ------------------------
            Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009.

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner management contends that respondents 3

to 18 have filed Ext.P3 complaint before the 2nd respondent.

According to them, though the complaint is not

maintainable, the Committee is enquiring into the merits

of the grievance. Therefore the submission made is that

this court should issue a writ of prohibition restraining the

Committee from proceeding with the enquiry pursuant to

Ext.P3, as it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same.

2. In my view, this writ petition is premature for the

reason that if the petitioner has a case that the Committee

lacks jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P3 complaint, it is for the

petitioner to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the

Committee itself and request the Committee to decide the

issue as a preliminary one and I have no reason to think

Wp(c).No.9416/09 /2/

that if such a request is made, the Committee will decline to

entertain the same.

3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of clarifying

that it will be open to the petitioner to move the 2nd

respondent itself and request to decide the maintainability of

the complaint as a preliminary issue.

With this observation the writ petition is disposed of,

without expressing anything on the merits of the respective

contentions.

                                      (ANTONY DOMINIC)
                                             JUDGE
vi/

Wp(c).No.9416/09    /2/