Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
P. SUBAIRKUNJU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA NO. 1801 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO.7827 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.NISHA GEORGE, SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
For the Respondents:GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES OF KERALA, SHRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS, SHRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD, SHRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.), SRI.P.SHANES METHAR, SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN, DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.), ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.), SHRI.M.R.SABU, SMT.APARNA RAJAN, SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
The court ruled that the expiration of the term of office of respondents rendered the appeal moot, maintaining the legal questions for future consideration.
Headnote:(A) University Laws and (Amendment)(No.2) Bill 2021 - Amendment in Section 23 of the Principal Act - Nomination of members of the Board of Governors and Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam University - The ordinance was replaced but did not receive assent, yet the members continued - Writ of quo warranto was filed and dismissed by the Single Bench. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Appeal - Maintainability of writ petition as a quo warranto by an advocate questioned - The term of office of the respondents is over, thus the matter does not require further consideration.
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the continuation of respondents as members of the Board of Governors despite the cessation of the ordinance. The Single Bench dismissed the petition on various grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the term of office of the respondents is over and thus closed the appeal while keeping the question of law open.
Issues: The primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition as a quo warranto by an advocate and the status of the respondents' term.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the term of office had expired, rendering the appeal moot and maintaining the legal questions for future consideration.
Result: Writ appeal ordered to be closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the continuation of board members under expired ordinance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appeal closed due to mootness. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025 Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 07.09.2023.
2. On the basis of the ordinance, respondent Nos.4 to 9 in the writ petition as well as in this case, were nominated as the members of the Board of Governors and Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam University by reason of the amendment in Section 23 of the Principal Act, whereby clauses Nos.(iii) and (viii) were inserted. The ordinance was replaced by the University Laws and (Amendment)(No.2) Bill 2021 but did not receive the assent of the Government till date. Even on the cessation of the ordinance, respondent Nos.4 to 9 continued as members of the Board of Governors, which was assailed in a writ of quo warranto by an advocate. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition on various grounds. It is in that background, Intra Court Appeal is filed.
3. We confronted the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the maintainability of the writ petition as a quo warranto by an advocate. The answer was that he was the nominee for the Board of Governors. Be that as it may.
4. The term of office of Respondents 4 to 9 is now over. Thus the matter does not require any further consideration. Accordingly, this writ appeal is ordered to be closed by keeping the question of law open.
