Kerala High Court
WP(C)/35952/2019 of FAYIZ.H Vs THE SECRETARY GENERAL on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T) PETITIONERS: 1 FAYIZ.H AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIDHALAVI N.H. RAMAN CHIRACKAL, POOKOLATHUR, PULPATTA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123. 2 RAHUL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T)
PETITIONERS:
1FAYIZ.HAGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIDHALAVI N.H. RAMAN CHIRACKAL, POOKOLATHUR, PULPATTA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIDHALAVI N.H. RAMAN CHIRACKAL, POOKOLATHUR, PULPATTA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 123.
2RAHUL RAJ.R.,AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN, THENNILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, CHATHANOOR, CHATHANOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN, THENNILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, CHATHANOOR, CHATHANOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3SREENITH MOHAN,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN T.S., THEKKEY GURUVAYUR, THAMARAYOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN T.S., THEKKEY GURUVAYUR, THAMARAYOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENONSRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMARSRI.A.G.PRASANTHSRI.HARISH R. MENONSRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMARSRI.A.G.PRASANTH
RESPONDENTS:
1THE SECRETARY GENERALASSOCIATION OF INDIA UNIVERSITIES AIU HOUSE, 16 KOTLA MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002.ASSOCIATION OF INDIA UNIVERSITIES AIU HOUSE, 16 KOTLA MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002.
2THE REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM 673 635.UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM 673 635.
3THE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM 673 635.UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM 673 635.
4THE ORGANIZING SECRETARY,ALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS (MEN), CHAMPIONSHIP, HEAD OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, ANDHRA PRADESH 110 062.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SCALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY ATHLETICS (MEN), CHAMPIONSHIP, HEAD OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA UNIVERSITY, ANDHRA PRADESH 110 062.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This Court by Ext.P2 judgment dated 16.12.2019disposed of the writ petition as follows:
“16.Having regard to the facts andcircumstances and the proposition of law discussedabove, I am of the considered opinion that, splitting upthe 8 years period prescribed under Rule 4 of theRevised Eligibility Rules of the Association of IndianUniversities has no nexus sought to be achieved, andthe classification cannot stand the twin test ofreasonableness discussed above, and is therefore,unconstitutional. Accordingly, I strike down the saidclassification made, and consequently, there will be adirection to the Universities to permit the students toparticipate for a period of 8 years between the age of17 and 25 years, as is prescribed under Rule 4 of theRules discussed above.
This writ petitions are allowed accordingly.”
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, seeking for similar reliefs as granted in Ext.P2 judgment,on the same cause of action.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah [(2007)7
SCC 689), has held that once a direction is issued by acompetent Court, it has to be complied/implemented by therespondents. If the order is not complied with by the party,the aggrieved party's remedy is to institute contempt ofcourt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, andnot to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action.
4. In the light of authoritative pronouncement bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not feel it necessary toentertain this writ petition for the purpose of reiterating thevery same direction passed in Ext.P2 judgment.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed,however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, againstpersons who have not complied with the directionscontained in Ext.P2 judgment.
Nkr/31.12.2019
Sd/-
C.S.DIASJUDGE
WP(C).No.35952 OF 2019(T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY RULES.
EXHIBIT P2
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2019 IN WPC NO. 30133/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THAT STUDENT EVIDENCING REJECTION OF PARTICIPATION.
EXHIBIT P4
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL