A statutory Appellate Authority is legally mandated to consider an appeal on its merits and issue a reasoned, transparent order to the aggrieved parties, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are students of the 2022 batch of the MBBS course of the Government Medical College, Kannur. They faced proceedings for the alleged ragging of a student, and were suspended on 03.01.2026. Later, as per Exhibit-P2 proceedings dated 15.01.2026, punishment was imposed upon them by rusticating the students from 03.01.2026 to 02.07.2026 as well as by evicting them from the hostel permanently. Petitioners challenged Exhibit-P2 order by preferring a statutory appeal as per the provisions of the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. Though the appeal was preferred by them on 07.02.2026, by a communication dated 13.04.2026, was issued by the Registrar of the University, informing that the Vice Chancellor, who is the Appellate Authority, had passed an order on 05.04.2026 stating that the appeal cannot be considered.

2. Petitioners contend that the reference in Exhibit-P5, to an order of the Vice Chancellor, has not been handed over to them. It is also contended that Exhibit-P5 does not mention any reason for refusing to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is in such circumstances that petitioners have approached this Court challenging the suspension and punishment imposed as per Exhibit-P1 and Exhibit-P2 as well as the proceedings and the communication issued by the Registrar of the University produced as Exhibit-P5. Petitioners also challenge the enquiry report of the Anti-Ragging Committee.

3. I have heard Sri. T. B. Hood, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Ganesh, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent University and Smt. K. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. Though the learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned Government Pleader sought time to obtain further instructions, this Court finds that the period of punishment imposed upon the petitioners will expire by 02.07.2026, as far as the rustication order is concerned. Delay in considering this writ petition may defeat the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the matter, especially in view of the nature of the order produced as Exhibit P5.

5. Challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioners by the Principal of the Institution, an appeal was filed by them, as provided under the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. It is an appeal provided under law, which confers a right on the petitioners to prefer an appeal. Once a right of appeal is conferred upon a party, it is obligatory for the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits and pass an order.

6. A perusal of Exhibit-P5 reveals that petitioners’ appeal was refused to be considered by the Vice Chancellor by an order dated 05.04.2026. Curiously, a copy of the order of the Vice Chancellor has not been issued to the petitioners and instead, a communication is issued by the Registrar of the University, intimating the refusal of the Vice Chancellor to consider the appeal without even attaching a copy of the order. Such a procedure is not contemplated by law. When an order is issued by any authority, law mandates that a copy of such an order be issued to the aggrieved immediately without any undue delay. Petitioners even contend that necessary documents to even prefer a proper challenge has been denied to them until 25.04.2026, and they had to take recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain a reply as Exhibit-P15.

7. Having regard to the above circumstances, it is evident that the entire procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority (the Vice Chan