Kerala High Court
Adil M.H vs Mahatma Gandhi University
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 23123 of 2016 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
ADIL M.H.
AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN,
MANJALAMKUNNEL HOUSE,
VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686 560,
REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. VICE CHANCELLOR
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686 560.
3. DIRECTOR
ANTI RAGGING COMMITTEE,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
BHADUR SHAH ZAFARMARG,
NEW DELHI 110002.
4. PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.P.PRADEEP
R1 &R2 BY ASOK M. CHERIAN SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 23123 of 2016 (M)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.07.2015 TO 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.08.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.08.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2015 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2015 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.10.2015 BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE ONLINE COMPLAINT NO.DEF430
PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 06.11.2015 FILED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.05.2016 FILED BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1198/2016 REGISTERED BY THE
ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE.
EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2016 PASSED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
ANNEXURE R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF PRINCIPAL.
ANNEXURE R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ANTI-RAGGING
SQUAD.
ANNEXURE R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM UGC
ANNEXURE R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT SENT TO UGC BY THE PRESENT
RESPONDENT.
// True Copy //
rmm P.A. To Judge
A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23123 OF 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court inter alia Projecting the inaction of the authorities in regard to the incidents of ragging which had been complained by him. The petitioner submits that, while he was a 2nd semester student, he suffered ragging for which, complaint had been given on 31.07.2015. An enquiry was conducted and as per the enquiry report, it was found that the allegations were not justified. The petitioner therefore, requested for a re-enquiry into the matter and according to the petitioner, the Principal of the College had informed a member of the UGC that a fresh enquiry will be conducted in the matter. But, no such enquiry was conducted. In the meantime, petitioner submitted an appeal before the University as Ext.P6 which is pending W.P.(C)No.23123 of 2016 2 consideration. Further, it is submitted that, on another occasion, the petitioner was again ragged by certain students on the allegations that he had given complaints to various authorities. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 complaint for which, no action had been taken by the Principal to conduct any enquiry. Though the police has registered a crime which is pending investigation, petitioner apprehends that a proper investigation may not be conducted in the matter and therefore, this writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry in regard to the first incident, to conduct enquiry in regard into the 2nd incident of ragging and further to conduct investigation in the crime by a specialized agency and for a direction to take appropriate action against the assailants who were involved in the the ragging.
2. Statement has been filed by the 4th respondent as directed by this Court. Along with the statement, the 4th respondent also produced Ext.R4(b) enquiry report wherein, it was found that the issue projected by the W.P.(C)No.23123 of 2016 3 petitioner was not a incident of ragging but, a political clash between members of SFI and MSF. It was further stated that after receiving Ext.P9 complaint, and same was forwarded to the police and a committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations. It was not forwarded to the Anti-ragging Squad as the Staff Council felt that, the allegations in second complaint are only a continuation of the first incident and prima facie no ragging is involved. It is also stated that Ext.P12 order was issued on 06.06.2016, by which, it was decided to place one Arsho and Vaisakh under suspension, pending enquiry.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the University submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner is under consideration by the University.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the UGC as well.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the enquiry report or W.P.(C)No.23123 of 2016 4 issuing any directions as sought for. In regard to the first incident, the committee constituted by the Principal has already come to a finding that the issue projected was not infact a ragging, but a political clash between the members of two student organizations. Further, perusal of Ext.R4, the enquiry report would indicate that a detailed investigation has been conducted by the committee and the report submitted. Even according to the petitioner, he had preferred an appeal against the report by submitting Ext.P6 along with Ext.P4 before the University. Apparently, it is for the University to take into consideration the said appeal and pass appropriate orders. At this point of time, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the same.
6. In regard to Ext.P9 complaint, the Principal has clearly stated in the affidavit that complaint has been given to the police and the complaint was forwarded to a committee constituted to enquire into the allegations. It is also clearly indicated that the complaint was not W.P.(C)No.23123 of 2016 5 forwarded to the Anti-ragging Squad since the Staff Council felt that the allegation in the 2nd complaint is only a continuation of the first complaint. Prima facie, there is no ragging involved.
7. Perusal of Ext.P9 also does not instil confidence on this Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to whether it is an incident of ragging. In fact, it was a case where crime has been committed for which, FIR has been registered by the police and investigation is in progress. Unless the investigation is complete, it may not be possible for this Court to adjudicate on the facts and circumstances involved in the matter. It is open for the police to conduct the investigation after taking into consideration all relevant facts and complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, for which, no direction need be issued by this Court. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved with the investigation, appropriate remedies are available under the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such W.P.(C)No.23123 of 2016 6 investigation process at this stage. In the light of the aforementioned circumstances, I do not think the petitioner is entitled for any relief as sought for.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE,JUDGE
rmm [ True copy]
P.A. to Judge