IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 13TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25306 OF 2012 PETITIONER:

UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 034 REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR IN CHARGE.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC, KERALA UTY.

SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA RESPONDENTS:

1 ARVIND GOPAL CHIRATTAKATTU PUTHEN MADAM, MANNACHERRY P.O. ALAPPUZHA 688 538.

2 KERALA LOK AYUKTA LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SR.

SMT.SMITHA GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 2^nd day of February 2023 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

Challenging Exts.P3 and P6 orders passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in relation to valuation of answer scripts, University of Kerala has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and to quash the same.

ii) issue a writ declaring that the complaint Ext.P1 is not maintainable in law and the reliefs sought are beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta as conferred through the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.

iii) issue a writ declaring that the Lok Ayukta ought not to have entertained the said complaint in disregard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

iv) Issue a writ declaring that the reliefs sought are matters beyond the purview and the powers enjoyed by the Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act and therefore the complaint ought to have been rejected.

2. Record of proceedings shows that on 1^st July 2015, learned Single Judge of this court has passed the following order:

“Learned counsel for the respondent university would submit that the purpose sought to be achieved by filing of the writ petition has been served as the first respondent has been permitted to take the examination and he had obtained the results also.

The learned counsel for the party respondent seeks time to get instructions.”

3. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the University submitted that nothing further survives in this writ petition to be considered by this court.

In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

SD/-

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE jes