IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 28653 of 2017 PETITIONER:

KARUNYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, CHAIKOTTUKONAM,KEEZHKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA -685122, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS:

1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

EL APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2008.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.8.2007.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.2009 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.1.2011.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE EL

13.3.2018 SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

---------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

Dated this the 05^th day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a trust, which has made an application for conducting Diploma in Health Inspection Course under Self Financing Scheme. The Government by Ext.P1 issued a letter of intent/No Objection Certificate. Accordingly, Management constructed required building space with laboratory, library and all other facilities for conducting the course. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P3, first respondent directed to furnish bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000/- which could not be arranged by the petitioner institution at that time. According to the petitioner, petitioner is prepared to furnish the said bank guarantee and has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent intimating the same and asking for permission to conduct the course. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 representation is pending before the first respondent till now and seeks appropriate direction for disposal of the same.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the application namely, Ext.P4 was disposed of as early as on 16.03.2013. Therefore, in my considered opinion the relief sought for in the writ petition has become inconsequential and redundant.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh application seeking appropriate reliefs.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS