IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37415 of 2010(B)
1. THE MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT &
4. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :11/02/2011
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 37415 OF 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner Society has approached this Court, mainly to
declare that the petitioner is entitled to start an Industrial Training
Centre at Karakkad in Chengannur and to direct the second
respondent to ‘revisit’ and evaluate the infrastructure provided in the
institution for enabling the petitioners to start the course and to have
forwarded the necessary recommendation to the 3rd respondent in this
regard.
2. The sequence of events has been narrated in the statement
filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the second respondent,
wherein it is pointed out that, pursuant to the application preferred by
the petitioner and on remittance of the necessary fees, the inspection
was conducted and the defects noted were notified to be cured.
Allegedly after curing the defects, the petitioner submitted application
for ‘re-inspection’ and remitted the necessary fees; pursuant to which,
the re-inspection was conducted, though it did not turn to be helpful to
the petitioner, as the defects were not cured completely.
W.P. (C) No. 37415 of 2010
: 2 :
3. The case of the petitioner is that all the defects have now
been cured and the respondents might be directed to effect a ‘re-
inspection’ and for further steps. This was not acceded favorably, for
the reason as stated in the statement, that Rules/Norms do not
contemplate any such ‘3rd re-inspection’. However, the second
respondent has pointed out in ‘paragraph 6’ of the statement that the
petitioner in not left with any remedy. Paragraph 6 of the statement, for
the convenience of reference, is extracted below :
“As there is no provision for one more Re-inspection as per
existing rules and grant provisional affiliation to start
Industrial Training Centre. The only option available to the
petitioner is to apply afresh for getting affiliation for the
trades/Units when the applications are invited the Director
on the decision of the State Council for Vocational Training
(SCVT). In the meeting of the SCVT held on 21.12.2010, it
was decided to invite applications from the applicants, which
got provisional permission in 2010 and whose affiliation
proposal for the trades/Units were not recommended by the
Inspection teams. Necessary action will be taken by this
directorate on receipt of the minutes of the said meeting”.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant
to the intimation given to the petitioner in this regard, enabling the
petitioner to submit a fresh application, necessary application has been
preferred remitting the prescribed fees and that re-inspection was
conducted yesterday.
W.P. (C) No. 37415 of 2010
: 3 :
4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that, the matter will be considered and appropriate
orders will be passed within the shortest possible time. The above
submission is recorded.
In the said circumstances, this Court finds that, no further orders
are necessary in this Writ Petition for the time being.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd
W.P. (C) No. 37415 of 2010
: 4 :
