SAYYID MUHAMMAD HANEEF THANGAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner represents a trust which runs a women's college by name Kaleel Salah English Medium Women's College in Pudiyavalappu, Galimukha in Mangalore District, Dakshina Karnataka. It is an educational institution, which is not affiliated to any university. Petitioner complains that the students of that institution are illegally deprived of the benefit of the Government Order, G.O.(P).97/96/PW&T dated 13.8.1996, as amended by Ext.P7 Government Order, G.O.(P). 103/96/PW&T dated 13.9.1996 and are thus denied the benefit of travel concession in stage carriages. The petitioner has produced materials to show that students of that institution were extended the benefit of travel concession, which is now denied. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of the counsel for the Kannur University, has also shown to the Court the mark lists issued to one of the students of the institution by the Kannur University which conducts Afsal Uluma course in 10 + 2 scheme.

(2.) On the basis of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent Kasaragode Taluk Bus Owner's Association, it can be seen that the fundamental objection to the claim of the students of the petitioner's institution is that the benefit of the notifications issued by the Government providing concession would not extend beyond the territorial limits of the State of Kerala and therefore, would not be available to students who study outside that State. The educational institution, admittedly, being in the State of Karnataka, its students are not entitled to the benefit of the notification as amended as per Ext.P7, contends the Bus Owners' Association. Learned Counsel for the 8th respondent further says that Ext.P3, which is produced to show that concessions were issued earlier, was essentially the product of some misrepresentation.

(3.) The second among the objections noted above needs to be dealt with first. Of the two places shown in Ext.P3, one is in Karnataka and the other in Kerala. Obviously there could not have been any misrepresentation on that count. Since the said document is issued by the Students' Travel Facility Committee of Kasaragod district, it would be far fetched to assume that the members of that Committee could have been duped as regards the identity of the destination of travel of the student concerned. Not only that, any benefit in terms of the amendment relied on is to be considered by the committee on a case to case basis and the claim of each student for travel concession has to be decided by looking into whether he/she is studying in any institution as claimed and whether that institution has registered his/her name in any of the Universities in Kerala as a student for a particular course or private study. It has also to be ascertained whether the total distance to be travelled is within the limit of 40 kms. These are questions of facts which the committee will have to look into when claim for concession is made, though the identity of the educational institution and the course vis-a-vis. a particular university may be a general issue of fact for decision by the committee. Therefore, that issue would not really matter much, if the committee decides on the request for travel concession appropriately, in the light of what is stated in this paragraph.