IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18369 of 2010(U)
1. T.R.PADMAKUMAR, (PRACHARAK NO.3786),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. THE DTO KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :12/10/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.18369 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who is a Pracharak of the Kerala
Hindi Prachara Sabha filed this writ petition mainly seeking
issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first
respondent and its officers to extend the benefit of student
concession to the students of the petitioner’s institution
namely, Pragathy Hindi Vidyalaya, Padmalayam in Kollam
District. In fact, the question of entitlement of students of
Pragathy Hindi Vidyalaya was a subject matter of two writ
petitions before this Court, namely, in WP(C) No.14270/2008
and WP(C) No. 22963/2008. As per common judgment the
said writ petitions were disposed as per Ext.P3. Admittedly,
the student concession facilities have been extended by the
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to the students by
virtue of Government Order G.O(P)35/2005 Tran. dated
24.11.2005. After adverting to the relevant clause thereunder
viz., Clause G of the said Government Order and the rival
contentions raised therein, it was held in Ext.P3 as
WPC.No.18369/2010
: 2 :
hereunder:-
“By Ext.P1 certificate produced by the petitioners from the
Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha, the Kerala Hindi Prachar
Sabha has certified that the petitioner’s institution is
recognised by the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha, the
institution is recognised by the Kerala Hindi Prachar
Sabha and that the institution is conducting classes for
various examinations such as Hindi Pravesh, Hindi
Bhooshan and Sahityacharya, which are considered as full-
time classes. It is also stated therein that the students of
these courses are not given any stipend. The institutions
run by the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha directly and the
institutions like the petitioner’s institutions are preparing
the students for the same courses, same examinations and
same certificates. That being so, I am of opinion that the
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation cannot
discriminate between the students of direct branches of
Hindi Prachar Sabha and franchisees of Hindi Prachar
Sabha like the petitioner. That being so, the students
studying in the petitioner’s institution are also entitled to
the equal treatment like the students of branches of Hindi
Prachar Sabha in the matter of student concession.
Accordingly, I direct the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation to extend student concession
facilities to the students studying in the Pragathi Hindi
Vidyalaya, Padmalayam conducted by the petitioner in WP
(C) No. 14270/2008 with immediate effect. The writ
petitions are allowed as above”
2. As per Ext.P3 it was held that the student concession
facilities is available to the students in the institutions run by
the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha and also in institutions like
the petitioner’s institutions. Consequently, direction was also
given to extend the students concession facilities to the
students of Pragathy Hindi Vidyalaya conducted by the
petitioner with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3
judgment the matter was taken in appeal as per WA
WPC.No.18369/2010
: 3 :
No.2563/2009. A perusal of Ext.P4 judgment would reveal
that the Corporation had raised the contention therein that
the institution run by the petitioner was not recognized by the
Hindi Prachar Sabha. It is evident from Paragraph 4 of Ext.P4
judgment that the factum that the Corporation had been
extending the benefit of student concession to the students of
the 12 branches of Hindi Prachar Sabha was also taken note of
by the Division Bench. The contention of the Corporation that
the institution run by the petitioner herein and the institution
run by the Hindi Prachar Sabha are different and was not
accepted by the Division Bench as it is seen from Ext.P4
judgment. The operative portion of Ext.P4 judgment assumes
relevant and it reads thus:-
“Since learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
submits that certain clarifications may have to be obtained
from the Government as regards the status of the students
of institutions like respondent No. 1 run by Hindi
Pracharaks, particularly in view of Ext.R1(h) we make it
clear that it will be open to the Corporation to approach the
Government and seek appropriate clarification, if found
necessary. Therefore, this order shall remain in force only
during the academic year 2009-2010.
With the above modification/clarification in the
impugned judgment, the writ appeal is closed.”
3. It is relevant to note that as per Ext.P4 judgment
virtually the judgment in Ext.P3 was affirmed by the Division
Bench and it was thereafter that taking note of the fact that
WPC.No.18369/2010
: 4 :
the corporation had sought certain clarifications from the
Government and that such clarifications were yet to be
received that the operation of the judgment was limited to the
academic year 2009-10. It is a common case that the said
situation continues even now.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made
available a copy of the memorandum No. TR2/026901/2006
dated 1.7.2010. It would reveal that even those students
studying at the office campus centres are being extended the
student concession by the Corporation.
5. The respondents have filed a statement and produced
Annexure R1 along with the same. Annexure R1 is a letter
from the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation
to the Government dated 9.12.2009. Essentially it carried a
request for furnishing clarifications sought for and referred to
in Ext.P4 judgment. However, it is the admitted position that
despite the receipt of Annexure R1 no clarifications have been
given by the Government as per G.O(P) 35/2005 Tran. dated
24.11.2005. According to the respondents the present issue of
the student concession is being governed by G.O(MS)11/2003
Tran. dated 17.3.2003. It is contended that the students
WPC.No.18369/2010
: 5 :
studying in the institution of the petitioner are now falling
under the purview of the said Government Order dated
17.3.2003. Therefore, the Corporation is not bound to extend
the concession facility to the students studying in the
petitioner’s institution. However, it is a fact that the
entitlement of the student concession facilities to the
institutions run by the petitioner was upheld by this Court and
that was virtually affirmed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment
though it was restricted to the academic year 2009-10. It was
so limited for the reason that Government did not furnish
certain clarifications sought for by the Corporation. A
scanning of contentions of the corporation would reveal that
they did not have a case that pursuant to their request for
clarifications, Government have clarified the points and by
virtue of such clarifications the students studying in the
petitioner’s institutions are disentitled to get student
concession facilities. In the absence of any such contentions, I
am of the view that the position obtained in the light of Ext.P3
and P4 is to be continued. In short, so long as the situation
that was available at the time of disposal of the Writ Appeal
No.2563/2009 continues, I am of the view that Ext.P3
WPC.No.18369/2010
: 6 :
judgment shall hold the field. In that view of the matter, there
is no reason for not extending the students concession
facilities to the students of Pragathy Hindi Vidyalaya as long
as the said position continues.
Disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge