Jessal Varghese v. Registrar, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University; Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University; Controller of Examinations, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University; Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi University; Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University; Controller of Examinations, Mahatma Gandhi University; Principal, SCMS School of Engineering and Technology

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 32116/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **JESSAL VARGHESE AGED 21 YEARS S/O. D. VARGHESE,3RD YEAR STUDENT, B.TECH(AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING) SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NEELWSWARAM P.O,KALADY, ERNAKULAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DR. G.P. PADMAKUMAR FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34** - **2 PROF. (DR). J.LETHA FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VICE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34** - **3 DR. S. SHABU FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-34** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-2-** - **4 SHRI M.R UNNI FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **5 DR. BABU SEBASTIAN FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 560** - **6 DR. THOMAS JOHN MAMPRA FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONTROLL OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 560** - **7 PROF. M. MADHAVAN FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL, SCMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 TO R3 - SRI.ELVIN PETER R4 TO R6 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, R7 - SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** This contempt petition is filed complaining that the directives contained in the judgment dated 09.11.2017 are not complied with. 2. The subject issue relates to the B.Tech (Electronics & Communications)course pursued by the petitioners in the SCMS College of Engineering, Karukutty, Ernakulam. The complex situation that lead to the filing of the writ petition arose consequent to the formation of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University _vis-a-vis_ the students who have not completed their semesters within the time period prescribed under the University Act and the laws, and who were pursuing their studies in institutions under the Mahatma Gandhi University. Therefore the following directions were issued by this Court, taking into account the judgment of this Court in _**Nanditha.T.K. v.APJ Adbul Kalam**_ ## _**Technological University and Other [2017(4)KHC**_ **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-4-** ## _**539].**_ “4. In my considered opinion, the issue raised in these writ petitions are also squarely covered as per the proposition of law laid down in the aforequoted judgment. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment. It is also brought to the notice of the respective Universities that, the judgment in Nanditha. T.K. is followed by the very same Division Bench in Nandu Narayan.S. v. University of Kerala and others in Writ Appeal No.1755/2017 dated 23.8.2017 and the said judgment shall also be taken note of. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respective Universities to comply with the directions contained in the judgments in Nanditha. T.K.(supra) and take necessary consequential actions accordingly.” 3. The case projected by the petitioner in the contempt petition is that, the direction issued by this Court was not complied with by the University and therefore there is contumacious and deliberate act on the part of the respondents to proceed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. Anyhow, during the pendency of this contempt petition, the Mahatma Gandhi University has introduced an order permitting to admit those students so as to enable them to complete the semesters. **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-5-** 4. I am informed by the learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent i.e. the SCMS College, Karukutty that, many of the students have joined in the college after paying the required fees and have completed their studies. However the petitioner in this contempt petition has failed to pay fees, participate in the classes and sit for the examinations and therefore, there is no deliberate attempt on the part of the college or the other authorities to comply with the directions contained in the judgment. 5. The 7[th] respondent has filed a detailed affidavit enumerating the details in respect of the directions issued by this Court as well as the developments that have taken place subsequent to the orders passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University permitting the students like the petitioners to participate in the semester process, irrespective of the formation of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The said affidavit reads **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-6-** thus:- 1. The 7[th] respondent in this Contempt of Court Case is the erstwhile Principal of the institution who is no more a part of this institution. I am well conversant with the facts of the case and also competent to swear this affidavit. 2. The above contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that there has been a willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court in the Judgement dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32116 of 2017 of this Hon’ble Court by the respondents in refusing to conduct VI Semester classes for the petitioner as per the curriculum of M.G. University for B.Tech Course (Automobile Engineering). 3. This Hon’ble Court had via its common Judgement dated 09.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 32116 of 2017 and connected cases directed the respondents to allow the petitioner and similarly situated petitioners of connected cases to continue with their respective courses under the rules and regulations applicable to them when they first took the admission to their respective courses and also to facilitate the examinations process until the end of their period of study, as per the applicable rules and regulations. 4. In compliance of the judgement of this Hon’ble Court, M.G. University had directed via its order dated 22.01.2018 to allow the following students, among others, re-admission to attend classes and appear for examinations: 1. Karthik B. 2. Sreeraj S. 3. Shahsadh Mohammed P.K. 4. Sreehari R. 5. Vivek Vijayan K.P. 6. Jessal Varghese The True copy of the Order No. 532/1/AIV/Academic/2018 issued by M.G. University dated 22.01.2018 is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit R1** . 5. In the above circumstances, it is pertinent to bring to **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-7-** the kind attention of this Hon’ble Court to the events that have transpired since then, to prove that there has been no willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court’s Judgement on the part of this respondent in refusing to conduct VI Semester classes for this petitioner. 6. From among the above-listed students, Karthik B. (1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C) 32021/17), Sreeraj S. (2[nd] petitioner in W.P.(C) 32021/17), Sreehari R. (1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C) 32071/17) and Shahasadh Mohamed P.K. (3[rd] petitioner in W.P.(C) 32071/17) had been allowed to continue with their course and they have all attended classes and completed their B.Tech. course from SCMS School of Engineering & Technology. 7. Mr. Vivek Vijayan (2[nd] Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 32071/17) had taken Transfer Certificate from the respondent college for joining another course. 8. So far as the petitioner of this contempt case is concerned, he had taken admission in NRI quota in SCMS and had only paid fees for the 1[st] and 2[nd] year on 14.08.2014 and 30.09.2015, respectively. As per the usual practice every student is to deposit the fee in advance for the academic year, however this respondent permits its students to deposit the fee within any time during the academic year with fine. The contempt petitioner herein did not deposit the fees for the 3[rd] year i.e, the V and VI semester, but he was permitted to attend classes. Even then the petitioner was irregular and did not achieve the minimum attendance as per the University norms. Accordingly he was declared ineligible for promotion to the final year. 9. Thereafter, in compliance to the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court this respondent had organized repeat courses for the petitioner herein and the similarly placed persons hereinabove mentioned. The other students had cleared all the arrear fees, but the petitioner herein refused to pay the fee for the 3[rd] year. Hence the petitioner was not permitted to continue with the **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-8-** classes because of the non-payment of fee which was due for the 3[rd] year (V and VI semesters) onwards. Payment of fee is an important factor for the continuation of the course. The college will not be able function if the determined fee is not paid by the students attending its classes. Allowing the petitioner to continue with classes even without the payment of fees cannot be read out from the directions of this Hon’ble Court’s aforementioned judgement. Had this petitioner made payment of fees, he would have been allowed to continue with his course, just like the other petitioners. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner’s unwillingness to remit the necessary fee, which is a pre-requisite for the continuation of any course in any institution, was the reason why he isn’t continuing with the classes and the same cannot be regarded as contempt of this Hon’ble Court’s order. Hence, the petitioner’s allegation is tenuous and is without any bonafide and deserves to be dismissed in limine. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble Court that this Court may be pleased to quash this contempt case foisted on me as it is without any substance and bonafide. Otherwise, I will be put to irreparable injury, hardship and loss.” 6. Infact learned counsel for the petitioner himself submitted that, the petitioner could not pursue his studies due to financial difficulties. 7. Taking into account the abovesaid aspects, and the developments that have taken place, I am of the considered view that, there is no deliberate or **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-9-** willful act on the part of the respondents in not complying with the directions issued by this Court enabling this Court to proceed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Needless to say contempt fails, accordingly it is dismissed. **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** hmh **CON.CASE(C) NO. 94 OF 2018** **-10-** ## **APPENDIX OF CONT.CASE NO.94/2018** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.32116/2017** **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NANDITHA T.K VS.APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITIY & OTHER 2017(3)KLT 1089** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE** **EXHIBIT R7(A)** **A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.532/1/AIV/ACADEMIC/2018 DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.**