IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23253 of 2009(B)
1. RENI JOHN, D/O.JOHN THOMAS,
... Petitioner
2. JOHN THOMAS, S/O.LATE M.J.THOMAS,
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
... Respondent
2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
3. TCV-COLLEGE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :21/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.23253 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 21st August,2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Senior Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent.
2. First petitioner appeared for the Medical
Entrance Examinations 2009. She was allotted to the
course-Agricultural Veterinary -Bachelor of Veterinary
Science (AV-B.VSc) in the 3rd respondent college, as
evidenced by Ext.P3. An amount of Rs.2425/- had to be
remitted as fee at any of the notified branches of State
Bank of Travancore before the last date notified by the 1st
respondent . On the day following the issuance of Ext.P3,
the 2nd petitioner went to the 2nd respondent Bank for
remitting the fee. Second respondent issued a chalan
form and asked him to fill up the details of the course.
Apparently, the chalan was issued in a form which alone
was available in the Bank. Ext.P4 shows that fee for
Rs.2425/- was remitted. But it seems that the remittance
was made in another account. First and 3rd respondent
W.P ( C) No.23253 of 2009
2
proceeded on the premise that the petitioner has not
remitted the fee within the time prescribed. It seems that
therefore the allotment to the petitioner was cancelled and
hence the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the bank submits
that an amount of Rs.2425/- was actually remitted by the 2nd
petitioner in the 2nd respondent Bank within the time
prescribed and the head of account was mistakenly noted.
4. I am of the view that petitioner should not be
denied admission, since there are no other factors which
militate against the eligibility of the petitioner to be
allotted the Veterinary Course. Second petitioner cannot
be held responsible for the mistake of a chalan having been
filled up showing a head of account different from the
applicable head of account. By an interim order passed by
this Court, one seat in the 3rd respondent college has been
kept vacant as well.
6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in the
following directions:
W.P ( C) No.23253 of 2009
3
a) Petitioner shall purchase a demand draft for an
amount of Rs.2425/- in the name of the Commissioner of
Entrance Examinations within one week from today and
produced it before the Commissioner of Examinations along
with copy of this judgment. The Commissioner shall accept
the same as due remittance, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and he shall acknowledge the
receipt of the same.
b) Petitioner shall then present herself before the
3rd respondent college along with acknowledgment of
receipt given by the Commissioner, he shall then be
admitted to the Agricultural Veterinary – Bachelor of
Veterinary Science (AV-B.VSc) Course by the 3rd
respondent.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.23253 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.23253 of 2009
5