Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias declined to grant interim relief sought in a writ petition concerning the conduct of a Syndicate meeting of a technological university. The Court recorded that the relief sought was identical to the main relief, that the proposed date of the meeting had already expired, and that the Supreme Court of India had already intervened in the matter by appointing a Former Judge of the Supreme Court as Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee to select the Vice-Chancellor of the university. In view of these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner had not fulfilled the trinity parameters entitling him to interim relief and directed that the matter be posted for further consideration.

The writ petition was filed by an individual holding the position of Vice-Chancellor of a technological university. The petitioner, aged 59 years, is the son of Late P.R. Ravi Varma and resides in Ernakulam District. The respondents included the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, the Secretary to Government Department of Finance, the Secretary to Government Department of Higher Education, the Director of Technical Education, the university represented by its Registrar, the Chancellor of the university, and additional parties impleaded pursuant to orders of the Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Clubbing Of 81 FIRs Against Builder | Grants Six-Month Temporary Bail On Condition To Deposit ₹9.94 Crore | Court Warns Keeping Him In Jail Serves No Purpose For Home Buyers

The writ petition prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent numbers 2, 3 and 4 to attend the 66th Syndicate meeting of the university scheduled to be held on 13 August 2025 as per an email communication. The petitioner further sought declarations that the repeated disbursal and abstinence of the said respondents from attending the Syndicate meetings was intentional and arbitrary, that such absence had caused administrative stalemate in the functioning of the university, and for other consequential reliefs.

The petitioner also prayed for interim relief pending disposal of the writ petition, specifically that respondents 2, 3 and 4 be directed to attend the 66th Syndicate meeting as scheduled.

During the proceedings, applications were filed seeking impleadment of additional parties. The Court recorded that counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 had no objection to impleadment. After hearing submissions and considering the affidavit in support, the Court allowed the application and directed impleadment of the applicants as additional respondents. The Registry was directed to carry out the impleadment both in the physical copy and metadata. Similarly, another application for impleadment was filed and allowed by the Court, adding further respondents. Again, the Registry was directed to carry out the changes in both physical and metadata records.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that employees and pensioners of the university were facing severe financial hardship because salaries and pensions were not being paid, which was attributed to the non-conduct of Syndicate meetings. It was contended that the respondents were wilfully absenting themselves, thereby preventing the conduct of meetings and stalling the administrative process of the university. Therefore, it was argued that respondents 2 to 4 be directed to attend the 66th Syndicate meeting.

The learned State Attorney opposed the submissions and contended that the writ petition itself had become infructuous as the date of the proposed meeting, 13 August 2025, was already over. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court of India had, by its order dated 18 August 2025 in pending special leave applications, appointed a Former Judge of the Supreme Court as Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor of the university. Therefore, it was argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to pursue the writ petition and that the dispute was sub-judice before the Supreme Court. The State Attorney sought time to file a counter affidavit and produce the orders of the Supreme Court.

Justice C.S. Dias, after hearing the submissions and perusing the materials, made detailed observations regarding the maintainability and reliefs sought in the writ petition. The Court recorded: “On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly, that the interim relief sought for in the writ petition is identical to the main relief, that the date of the proposed meeting is over and the Honourable Supreme Court appointing a Former Judge of the Supreme Court as Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee to appoint the Vice-Chancellor of the University, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has fulfilled the trinity parameters entitling him to an interim relief.”

The Court noted that the primary relief claimed by the petitioner was to compel the attendance of certain respondents at the Syndicate meeting scheduled for 13 August 2025. However, by the time the matter was heard, that date had already passed, rendering the request no longer capable of implementation. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that the Supreme Court had entered the field by appointing a Former Judge of the Supreme Court to head the selection process for the Vice-Chancellor, which had a direct bearing on the subject matter of the writ petition. In such a scenario, the Court found no reason to grant the interim relief sought.

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Angamaly Co-op Scam | Bail Granted To Two Elderly Accused In ₹115.8 Crore Fake Loan Misappropriation Case

It was further observed that the trinity parameters—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—required to grant interim relief had not been satisfied by the petitioner in the present case. The absence of a subsisting occasion for directing attendance at a meeting that had already lapsed was a crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning. The fact that the Supreme Court had assumed jurisdiction in relation to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor further reinforced the conclusion that interim relief was unwarranted.

In view of the above findings, Justice C.S. Dias declined the interim prayer. The Court specifically recorded: “Hence, the petitioner’s prayer for an interim relief is declined.” The matter was directed to be posted for further proceedings on 15 September 2025. The order was directed to be handed over, and copies were certified as true by the Assistant Registrar.

The court further ordered impleadment of additional respondents. With respect to I.A. No.1 of 2025, the court recorded that respondents five and six, namely the university and its Chancellor, had no objection to their impleadment and accordingly directed their addition as parties. Similarly, in I.A. No.2 of 2025, two deputy registrars were impleaded as respondents seven and eight. The Registry was directed to carry out the impleadment in the physical records as well as the metadata.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/S George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate), Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Kavya Varma M.M.

For the Respondents: P. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate), Advocate S. Prsanath for R6; Memo by K.R. Ganesh for Additional R5 and R6; State Attorney

Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad v. State of Kerala & Others

Case Number: WP(C) No. 29777 of 2025

Bench: Justice C.S. Dias