The court ruled that compliance with judicial orders negates the grounds for review, and condemned forum shopping practices.

ORDER/JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

W.A.Nos.680 of 2025 and 681 of 2025 arise out of the judgment dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.38856 of 2024 and 42835 of 2023.

2. The appellant, namely, Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust (KMCT), filed W.P.(C)No.38856 of 2024 challenging Ext.P4 order dated 19.12.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), whereby its request for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to submit application before the University Grants Commission (UGC) in order to include KMCT Dental College, Manassery, Mukkam, Kozhikode in the proposed KMCT Distinct Institution (Deemed to be University) under Distinct Institution category stands rejected, and Ext.P6 order dated 17.01.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent University, whereby a similar request for grant of NOC to submit application before the UGC to include National College of Pharmacy, Manassery, Mukkam, Kozhikode in the proposed KMCT Distinct Institution (Deemed to be University) under the Distinct Institution category stands rejected. Other consequential reliefs were also sought for in that writ petition.

3. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.42835 of 2023 challenging Ext.P4 order dated 07.08.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent University, whereby its request to grant of NOC to submit application before the UGC to include KMCT Medical College and KMCT Ayurveda College, Manassery, Mukkam, Kozhikode in the proposed KMCT Distinct Institution (Deemed to be University) under Distinct Institution category stands rejected, and Ext.P6 order dated 08.11.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent University, whereby a similar request for grant of NOC to submit application before UGC to include KMCT College of Nursing, Manassery, Mukkam, Kozhikode in the proposed KMCT Distinct Institution (Deemed to be University) under the Distinct Institution category stands rejected. Other consequential reliefs were also sought for in that writ petition.

4. The above writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge, by setting aside Exts.P4 and P6 orders in the respective writ petitions and directing the competent among the respondents to pass orders afresh, on the requests made for NOC, within a period of three months. By the judgment dated 24.03.2025, Exts.P4 and P6 orders in the respective writ petitions were set aside, since those orders are non-speaking orders. In the judgment, the learned Single Judge has made it clear that the Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the claim made by the writ petitioner.

5. Challenging the common judgment dated 24.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed W.A.Nos.680 of 2025 and 681 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 .

6. On 08.04.2025, when W.A.Nos.680 of 2025 and 681 of 2025 came up for admission before the Division Bench, notice before admission was ordered. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent University sought time to address the Court as to why NOC was not granted. In the order dated 08.04.2025, the Division Bench noticed the provisions contained in Clause (6) of the University Grants Commission (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023.

7. On 16.04.2025, when the writ appeals came up for consideration before the Division Bench, the following order was passed;

“Shri. Binny Thomas, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, today has again sought one week's time to submit before this Court why the NOC cannot be granted. Let the matter with regard to the issuance of the NOC be considered by the University after hearing the appellant/petitioner within a period of fifteen days from t