IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8889 of 2008(G)
1. DR.K.SREEKUMAR
... Petitioner
2. DR.M.JATHAVEDAN,PROFESSOR
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
3. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
4. KERALA STATE HIGHER EDCUATION COUNCIL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI,S,P,ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :28/03/2008
O R D E R
H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 8889 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008.
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, CJ,
Two public spirited citizens are before us for the following reliefs:
“a) quash Ext.P6 order by the issue of a writ of certiorari or
other appropriate writ, order or direction.
b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order
or direction commanding the respondents to drop all the proceedings
for the conversion of Cochin University of Science and Technology
into any kind of Institute and to retain its status as University for all
times to come.”
2. When the matter was posted before the court for admission, we
had directed Smt.K.Meera, learned Government Pleader, to take notice for
respondent No.2 and also to get appropriate instructions.
3. Now the matter is once again posted before the court for
admission. The learned Government Pleader has produced before us a letter
dated 15.3.2008. In that, the State Government has only stated that they have
made certain recommendations to the Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Government of India and the said ministry has not taken any decision so far.
4. Having gone through the letter of the State Government dated
15.3.2008, we are of the opinion that the petition filed by the petitioners is only
premature. The State Government has made some recommendation to the Central
Government and it is for the Central Government to take a decision one way or the
WPC. 8889/2008. 2
other in the matter and if the decision is against the petitioners, they are at liberty to
approach this court once over again for appropriate reliefs. In that view of the matter,
for the present, we dispose of this writ petition as unnecessary. However, we reserve
liberty to the petitioners to approach this court, if need arises, in future.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
sb/DK.