Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE5H DAY OF OCTOBER201313TH ASWINA, 1935 WA.No. 1470 of 2013 () ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 13543/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED1401-2013 ------------------- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS1TO4: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------------------ BRAHMAMANGALAM HIGH SCHOOL UNION BRAHMAMANGALAM PO, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-CUM-MANAGER K.SASEENDRAN, S/O.KUMARAN, PIN - 686 605. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0510-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
.................................................................... C.M.Appln.No.813 of 2013 & W.A.No.1470 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of October, 2013.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
This writ appeal against judgment dated 14.01.2013 is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 228 days. The affidavit does not disclose the date on which the Government placed files before the Advocate General, though it is stated that the files were placed for instituting an appeal. The blame is put on the Government Pleader for the delay in drafting the appeal.
2. We have examined the merit of the appeal as well. Respondent, a registered charitable society running an aided school, moved this Court in 2000 when Government failed to sanction it higher secondary course. By judgment in that original petition this Court held that respondent's school has C.M.Appln.813/13 & W.A.1470/13 -2- all the requisite qualifications for grant of higher secondary course and directed the Government to grant Plus Two course to that school for the academic year 2001-2002. The writ appeal filed by the State against that judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed along with the batch of other similar writ appeals. Contempt of court case on the basis of the decision of the learned single Judge was later dismissed as infructuous by the Division Bench in view of the fact that by that time, the academic year for which the Plus Two course was directed to be granted by that judgment was over. Obviously therefore, the question of granting the Plus Two course ought to have been carried over and taken ahead during the subsequent academic years. Ultimately, when that was not done, the respondent filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises. That writ petition was filed in 2005. The learned single Judge found that there was absolutely no reason for the Government to refuse grant of Plus Two course to the respondent's school. This appeal is filed with the application for condonation of delay fundamentally pleading C.M.Appln.813/13 & W.A.1470/13 -3- that it is unfair for the learned single Judge to have ordered implementation of directions issued by this Court more than a decade ago and that the situation in 2000 has undergone a sea of change by that time in relation to educational imbalance, financial position and comparative merit etc.
3. One thing is certain and ought to be emphasised. Mere passage of time does not take away the efficacy and quality of the findings on facts rendered by the court. If the judgment rendered in the earlier round was not, ultimately, enforced merely on the premise of the change of the academic year, it is high time for all in the Government to understand that judgments do not operate from year to year or during any particular financial year or educational year. In the case in hand, the stand now taken in this appeal is that the earlier judgment of the year 2000 has undergone a sea change. Remember, no counter affidavit was filed to the writ petition.
4. If the single Judge or the Division Bench had found C.M.Appln.813/13 & W.A.1470/13 -4- that, at a particular point of time, there was an educational need, the fact findings for that year cannot be upset by the Government on a presumption that passage of time brings "sea change". We are not dealing with any stagnant waters. We are dealing with vibrancy of governance expected and due in a sovereign democratic republic. If the executive limb of governance tries to make the great ocean, "We, the People of India", a still one, it may even rise up to be a tumultuous Tsunami of human reactions, when driven to the wall. Rule of law has to be upheld and law and order will have to run for all times. Those in governance cannot merely keep files in a dormant state and later on, plead that judicial orders have become stale with the passage of time. No court will pass futile writs. The factual foundations available at a particular point of time cannot be dislodged in a subsequent proceeding. Change of circumstances and factual situations by change of times can be pleaded and relied upon only by appropriately placing relevant materials and demonstrating it to the court taking up the second matter. Here, in the case in hand, there C.M.Appln.813/13 & W.A.1470/13 -5- was no material before the learned single Judge except the superfluous statement that passage of time has made a sea change. The winds may pull the sails, but we have a system where the yacht will still keep itself straight even in tumultuous waves or winds. That is the spirit of our Constitution. The writ appeal and the application for condonation of delay do not merit to be entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, the C.M.Application and the writ appeal are dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg