Refusal to Grant Interim Relief Upheld as Prayer Became Infructuous with Passage of Time: Kerala High Court - 2025-10-10

Kerala High Court Upholds Refusal of Interim Order to KTU VC, Cites Administrative Stalemate and Supreme Court's Involvement

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Dr. Sivaprasad, the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU), upholding a single judge's decision to deny an interim order directing state-nominated Syndicate members to attend a university meeting. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Murali Krishna S. concluded that the single judge's reasoning was "neither perverse nor patently illegal," especially since the specific meeting date in question had already passed, rendering the immediate relief sought "infructuous."

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Dr. Sivaprasad, who alleged that the repeated absence of three government-nominated members from the University Syndicate meetings was causing an "administrative stalemate." He claimed their non-attendance was intentional and arbitrary, hindering crucial university functions, including the disbursal of salaries and pensions.

The Vice-Chancellor sought a writ of mandamus to compel the members to attend the 66th Syndicate meeting scheduled for August 13, 2025. He also requested a declaration from the court that their repeated abstinence was a dereliction of their public duty.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the absence of the Syndicate members was causing severe financial hardship to university employees and pensioners and that an interim direction was necessary to resolve the deadlock.

The State Attorney vehemently opposed the plea, making three primary arguments:

1. Infructuous Prayer: The petition sought a direction for a meeting on August 13, 2025, a date that had already passed, making the request moot.

2. Locus Standi Questioned: The Supreme Court, in a related matter, had appointed a former judge to chair a Search-cum-Selection Committee for a new Vice-Chancellor, raising questions about the current petitioner's standing to continue the litigation.

3. Matter Sub-Judice: The larger dispute concerning the university's administration was already under the consideration of the Supreme Court.

The Court's Rationale

The Division Bench reviewed the single judge's order, which had denied the interim relief based on three key factors: the relief sought was identical to the main prayer, the meeting date had passed, and the Supreme Court was seized of the matter.

The Division Bench found this reasoning to be sound and saw no grounds for appellate interference. The court also took note of its own previous judgment from July 14, 2025, where it had expressed deep concern over the ongoing administrative stalemate at KTU. That judgment had urged both the Chancellor and the State Government to "act proactively" to ensure a regular Vice-Chancellor is appointed without further delay.

Final Decision and Implications

In its final order, the Division Bench stated, "Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order...for declining the interim relief sought for...is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in this writ appeal."

With this observation, the appeal was dismissed. The decision underscores the principle that courts are reluctant to grant interim reliefs that have become impossible to enforce due to the passage of time. It also highlights the judiciary's deference to matters pending before a higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court's ongoing proceedings related to the university's leadership.