BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

WRIT PETITION NO (UNDER ART.226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

FAHEEMA SHIRIN RK.……………………………………………..…..PETITIONER

STATE OF KERALA AND ORS……………………………………….RESPONDENT

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

i.BOOKS

ii.CASE LAWS

iii. DICTIONARIES

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5. ISSUES RAISED

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

2
 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& AND

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Art Article

Ltd Limited

Ors Others

FR Fundamental Rights

SC Supreme Court

Corpn Corporation

UOI Union Of India

v. Versus

Vol Volume

SCC Supreme Court Cases

ILR Indian Law Times

KLT Kerala Law Times

SEC Section

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUITIONAL LAW, 7th Edition.2014,

LexisNexis Butterworth’s

2 DR.JN. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,55th Edition.2018,

Central Law Agency

3 V. N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th Edition.2013, Eastern

Book Company

4
 CASE LAWS
INDIAN CASE LAWS

.
1 Indulekha Joseph v. VC M G University & Ors ILR 2008(3) Ker 346

2 Manu Vilson v. Sree Narayana College, AIR 1996 Ker 369.

3 M.H Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small (1998) 3 SCC 732

Industries Corporation

4 Sojan Francis v. MG University AIR 2003 ker 290, 2003 (2)

KLT 582

5 University of Madras v. Santa Bai AIR 1954

6 Unniraja v. Principal Medical College, AIR 1983 Ker 200

7 Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v/s Gujarat AIR 2015

Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
Limited & Others

DICTIONARIES

1 Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan. A. Garner, 8th Edition. 2004, West,

Thompson

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The petitioner, Faheema Shirin, is a female student at Sree Narayaguru

College (affiliate of the University of Calicut) who was residing at the Women’s
Hostel run by the college.

2. The hostel authorities implemented new regulations at the Hostel which

restricted the use of mobile phones within the hostel from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am
and then from 6pm to 10pm, while the use of laptop by undergraduates was
prohibited.

3. Upon receiving the notification of the new rule, Shirin complained to the
Hostel Authorities that the restrictions on the usage of mobile phones was
inconvenient and requested to convene a meeting to discuss the same.

4. When her efforts were rebuffed, she took the matter to the Principal of the
college requesting to relax the restrictions. Thereupon Shirin was asked to give
her reluctance in abiding the hostel rules in writing and her parents were asked
to meet with the Principal.

5. In the meeting, they were informed that if Shirin did not comply with the
Hostel’s rules and regulations she would have to vacate her room immediately.
The residents of the Hostel were also asked to furnish a document stating their
willingness to comply with the restriction.

6. Shirin was served a notice to vacate the hostel within 12 hours and thereafter
when she arrived to vacate her room, the door was locked and the Hostel
Authorities did not allow her to take her belongings. The loss of housing was
also detrimental to Shirin as she would have to travel nearly 150 km every day
making it impossible for her to attend her college classes.

7. The Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus in the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HEREBY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE THE

HON’BLE HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, IN LIEU OF PETITIONER INVOKING THE
WRIT PETITION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

A. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS

MAINTAINABLE?

B. WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE HOSTEL ON

THE USE OF MOBILE PHONES INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER ?

C. WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE BY

RESTRICTING THE USE OF MOBILEPHONES WOULD RESULT IN
CURTAILING THE RIGHT OF THE STUDENTSTO ACQUIRE
KNOWLEDGE BYDIFFERENT MEANS?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A.THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

A.1 The writ petition is not maintainable Until and unless no fundamental right is
Violated.
A.2 University doesn’t falls under the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of
The Constitution of India.
A.3 Writ petition is not maintainable against private party.

B. THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE HOSTEL ON THE USE OF MOBILE

PHONES DOESN’T INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
PETITIONER.

B.1 It is humbly submitted that the restriction imposed by the hostel on the use
of Mobilephone doesn’t infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

C. THE ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE BY RESTRICTING THE USE OF

MOBILEPHONES WOULDN’T RESULT IN CURTAILING THE RIGHT OF
THE STUDENTS TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE BY DIFFERENT MEANS.

C.1 Enforcement of discipline by restricting the use of mobilephones doesn’t

infringed right of the students to acquire knowledge by different means.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The remedy of writ has been given under the constitution of india under article 32 and
226. The concept of writs along with PIL has enlarged the scope of access to judiciary in case
of violation of rights, specially fundamental rights.

A 1. WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE WHEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

IS NOT VIOLATED

Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India against the State in
violation of any of the fundamental rights as given in Part III of the Constitution. Until and
unless no fundamental right is violated, one cannot seek remedy through writ petitions.
Therefore, it is accordingly argued that the rights arising out of a statute or out of a contract
cannot be a fundamental right itself and hence no writ petition lies for the same.

Here there is no violation of fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore
the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable.

A 2. ‘UNIVERSITY’ DOESN’T COMES UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE

CONSTITUTION
In Article 12 the expression ‘other authorities’ is used after mentioning a few of them, such
as, the Government, Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each of the State
and all local authorities 1 In University of Madras v. Santa Bai 21, the Madras High Court
held that ‘other authorities’ could only mean authorities exercising governmental or
sovereign functions. It cannot include persons, natural or juristic, such as, a University unless
it is ‘maintained by the State’.
In Article 12 the bodies specifically named are the Government of the Union and the States,
the Legislature of the Union and the States and local authorities. There is no common genus
running through these named bodies nor can these bodies so placed in one single category on
any rational basis. So Writ can’t be maintained under article 226.

1.Constitution of India , 1950 art 12

2.University of Madras v. Santa Bai AIR 1954
10
A 3. WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY

Article 226 of the constitution gives power to hon’ble high courts to issue writs in cases of
violation of fundamental and other rights as well. But the words ‘other authority’ and ‘any
other purpose’ had been deeply scrutinized by the hon‘ble courts which has established that
writ against private party is not maintainable under Article 226, In Vipulbhai M.
Chaudhary v/s Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Ors 3 , the hon’ble court
dismissed a writ petition against a private co. because a writ petition is not maintainble against a private
individual.

B. THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE HOSTEL ON THE USE OF MOBILE

PHONES DOESN’T INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
PETITIONER

B.1 It is humbly submitted that the restriction imposed by the hostel on the use of
mobile phone doesn’t infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

Based on the request of some of the parents, the adjustment in the period of the restriction for
cell phone use was found to be impaired. The petitioner was admitted to the hostel on the basis
of an application in which she signed an agreement with her father to comply with the rules of
the hostel and to follow the directions of the hostel administration
A meeting took place on 19.06.2019 to receive concerns from parents about the
inappropriate usage of cell phones in the women’s hostel, in which it was unanimously agreed
to ban the use of mobile phones from 6 p.m. Towards 10 p.m. To ensure that students only use
their study time for study purposes, the decision was conveyed to all hostel inmates by the
appropriate Deputy Wardens.
Furthermore, the father of the petitioner also notified the hostel warden that if his daughter used
the cell phone, he seemed to have no problem. Warden’s complaint to the principal detailing
the embarrassment she faced from the father of the petitioner; her father also came to college
and yelled at the warden in front of students, parents, and other teachers accusing them of
prohibiting cell phone use in the modern era, despite this warden taking no measure against
him. They have indeed told them that if she is not able to abide by the guidelines, she can either
choose to obey the directions or to abandon the hostel. 2

3.Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v/s Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Others AIR 2015

11
At the time of the meeting, her parents were also there to enforce the ban enforcing the use of
the cell phone where they were rudely behaving with the vice president. Also, they are not
expected to object to the same if the applicant and her parents’ consent to cooperate with the
directive.
The college has a full-fledged library of more than 30,000 books, according to the warden,
which students can use and thus gain information on the internet alone between 6 p.m. Yes,
and 10 p.m. An arbitrary limitation cannot be claimed to be. It is also asserted that if the
petitioner wishes to gather information through the internet, she is free to use a laptop for which
there are no limitations.
The hostel authorities emphasized on the need for discipline in the hostel and they claimed
that this restriction was imposed for ensuring that there was no misuse of mobile phones
within the hostel premises during the study time. They also made a reference to clause 7 of
Chapter 7 of the Calicut University First Ordinances 1978 which lays down that the students
residing in the hostel would be subject to the disciplinary control of the
warden/superintendent of the hostel 43 .

C. THE ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE BY RESTRICTING THE USE OF

MOBILE PHONES DOESN’T RESULT IN CURTAILING THE RIGHT OF THE
STUDENTS TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE BY DIFFERENT MEANS.

C 1. They argued ardently that on taking admission the petitioner and her father was
informed about the rules of the hostel and to oblige by it, they were thus admitted by

signing a document containing the rules and regulations of the hostel and agreeing to

obey the same. And the new updating made in the rules was because of the imprudent

objection from the parents on the usage of mobile phones, consequently, a meeting was

held by the deputy warden about the time restriction made from 6 p. m to 10 p. m. The

sole aim was to make sure the student gives time for study purposes as well as be

disciplined and don't squander with technology

The hostel is run by Sree Narayana Trust and it is under the control of the board of
management. It is stated that the study time for the inmates is prescribed from 6 p.m to 8 p.m

4 Calicut University First Ordinances 1978

12
and from 9 p.m to 10 p.m, as per the rules of the hostel. As per the Rules, usage of mobile
phone is strictly prohibited in the college and hostel. It is stated that the petitioner was
admitted in the hostel based on application in which she along with her father had signed
agreeing to abide by the rules of the hostel and to obey the directions of the hostel authorities.

It stated that on receiving complaints from parents regarding the excessive usage of mobile
phones in the hostel for women, a meeting was convened and as per minutes it was
unanimously decided to restrict the use of mobile phones from 6 p.m to 10 p.m to see that
students are utilising their study time for study purposes only; the decision was
communicated to all the inmates of the hostel by the respective Deputy Wardens. It is stated
that the petitioner had not made any request explaining any inconvenience on account of the
restriction and that there was no request from the petitioner or any other inmate to convene
any meeting.

It is stated that the petitioner was the only student/inmate, who refused to abide by the
instructions to surrender the mobile phone. It also stated that the petitioner was not asked to
vacate the hostel within 12 hours as alleged.

The college is having a full-fledged library with more than 30,000 books which the students can
utilise and therefore acquiring knowledge through internet alone between 6 p.m and 10 p.m cannot be
said to be an unreasonable restriction. Relying on the judgments in Sojan Francis v. MG University 5,
Unniraja v. Principal Medical College 64 , Manu Vilson v. Sree Narayana College 7 Indulekha
Joseph v. VC M G University & Ors.8 ,M.H Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries
Corporation 9 etc. it is stated that supreme authority to control and enforce discipline in an educational
institution is the head of the institution; the authorities of the college as well as the hostel are entitled
to take suitable measure to maintain discipline; it is the duty of the members of the teaching staff to
take appropriate measures to achieve excellence in education; it is the duty of the institution which
imparts education, to maintain discipline and to enforce the rules and regulations which are lawfully
framed, stating that the rules are not designed to curtail any fundamental right. It is further stated that
in case the petitioner wants to gather knowledge through internet, she is free to use laptop for which
there is no restriction.

5.Sojan Francis v. MG University AIR 2003 ker 290, 2003 (2) KLT 582
6. Unniraja v. Principal Medical College AIR 1983 Ker 200
7. Manu Vilson v. Sree Narayana College, AIR 1996 Ker 369.
8. Indulekha Joseph v. VC M G University & Ors ILR 2008(3) Ker 346
9. M.H Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Corporation (1998) 3 SCC 732

13
A student is admitted in a hostel based on her application in which she herself as well as her parent
would have furnished a declaration agreeing to abide by the rules and regulations already issued and
the instructions which would be issued from time to time by the authorities. From the impugned
restriction against using mobile phones during 6 pm to 10 pm would show that the total prohibition of
mobile phones prescribed in the rules was never acted upon. However in the light of the contention of
the respondent college that it is upto the students to stay in the hostel strictly abiding the rules and
instructions or else they are free to leave the hostel.

The provisions in the ordinance also provide that every student residing in the hostel would be subject
to the disciplinary control of the warden/superintendent/proprietor of the hostel. It is well settled
proposition, in the light of a series of judgments like Unnirajas' case (supra), Manu Vilson's case,
Sojan Francis' case, Indulekha Joseph's case (supra), etc., that the Principal of the College is the
supreme authority to control the students and to enforce discipline in the college. Similar is the case
with the hostel also, where the authority would be the warden as well as Principal.

14
 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited
the Respondent most humbly and respectfully pray that this Hon’ble High Court may
kindly adjudge and declare that:

A. THE WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

B. THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE HOSTEL ON THE USE OF

MOBILE PHONES DOESN’T INFRINGE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
OF THE PETITION.

C. THE ENFORCEMENT OF DISCIPLINE BY RESTRICTING THE USE OF

MOBILE PHONES DOESN’T RESULT IN CURTAILING THE RIGHT OF
THE STUDENTS TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE BY DIFFERENT MEANS.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER. DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS

HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY.
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

Date:

Place:

Counsel for Respondent

15