STATE OF KERALA Vs. ARYA P.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petition is filed against the judgment dated 20.01.2017 in the captioned writ petition seeking review of the conditions enjoined thereunder and to incorporate necessary safeguards to enable the Government to recover the balance amount, if falls due, based on the verdict to be pronounced in W.P.(C)No.32063/2015. Evidently, this court while disposing of the matter directed for the issuance of migration and transfer certificates on executing a simple bond without sureties after effecting remittance of fee in the manner specifically mentioned therein. Such an order was passed taking into account the fact that a Division Bench of this Court has passed a similar order, as an interim measure in W.P.(C)No.18004/2016 and forming the opinion that upon issuance of an order in that regard nothing would survive for further consideration. It is submitted that only an interim order was passed therein whereas the captioned writ petition was finally disposed of and hence, the real intent and object of the judgment, so far as they pertain to the State Government could not be achieved unless the conditions are modified.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocate General and also the learned counsel for the first respondent/the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent/the 4th respondent, in the writ petition.

(3.) Having elaborately heard the submissions, we are of the view that there is substance in the contention made on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General. We are also convinced of the necessity to review the conditions already enjoined so as to enable the State Government to have a smooth and unhindered mode to effect recovery of balance amount of fee, if falls due, on pronouncement of judgment in W.P.(C)No.32063/2015. As per the judgment dated 20.1.2017 we have disposed of the writ petition taking note of the willingness expressed by the writ petitioner/the first respondent herein to remit the amount of Rs.60,000/- per year from 2009-'10 onwards till the completion of the course and also the prayer to permit to adjust the amount allegedly paid in excess toward the first year's fee while effecting payment as ordered. While disposing the writ petition on the aforesaid lines we have directed the writ petitioner/the first respondent only to execute a simple bond without sureties to the effect that if based on the verdict to be passed in W.P.(C)No.32063/2015 any amount falls due it would be paid without raising any further challenge. It was subject to such conditions that a further direction was given to issue the migration and transfer certificates within the time stipulated thereunder. Taking note of the submission that the writ petitioner has already effected payment of more than Rs.3 lakhs for the year 2008-'09, it was directed to set off balance, if any, against the amount to be remitted by the writ petitioner in terms of the judgment. It was also made clear that, if the petitioner had not actually paid Rs.3 lakhs for that year, to make good the deficiency in respect of that year and to ensure payment of Rs.3 lakhs in that year as well they shall pay the balance amount. In view of the submissions now made by both sides, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of justice to review the conditions enjoined to give full effect to the intention with which and the purpose for which orders were issued by that judgment. Essentially, the intention is to see that pendency of W.P.(C)No.32063/2015 shall not jeopardies the academic future of the writ petitioner/the first respondent and at the same time to see that the interest of the State is also safely protected in case the verdict in W.P.(C)No.32063/2015 goes in favour of the State, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32063/2015. In such circumstances, the review petition is disposed of as hereunder:-