Ramesan K. v. The Kannur University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/20TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 30885 of 2015 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- RAMESAN K. ,AGED 49 YEARS S/O KUNHAPPA, PARAYATH HOUSE, KUDUKKIMOTTA, PO EACHUR KANNUR DIST.

BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTAED BY ITS REGISTRAR CIVIL STATION P.O, THAVAKKARA KANNUR - 670 002.

2.

THE SYNDICATE OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REPRESENTAED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/VICE CHANCELLOR CIVIL STATION P.O, THAVAKKARA KANNUR DIST. 670 002.

R BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, KANNUR UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 30885 of 2015 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20.8.99 IN THE FORMAT PRESCRIBED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P1(A) COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DTD. 20.8.15 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED FEE EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.23.4.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.23.4.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10.6.15 IN W.P.(C) NO.17360/15 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.30885 of 2015 - I ====================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P2 representation filed before the 1st respondent. The representation is filed on 23.04.2015.

2. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent definitely will have to look at the representation filed before it and consider the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits, which the 1st respondent will consider, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/ 12 /10 /2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.