High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr C P Mohammedali Shihab vs The Chairman The Administrative … on 6 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr C P Mohammedali Shihab vs The Chairman The Administrative … on 6 January, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN

DA'I'I£1') THIS THE; 6"?" DAY OF JANUARY _2'_©'1'0 -'C   _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICECS. A31 )j:Ui.--.  7

WRET PETITION No.13971/2009'{EDNJ..;é:i;s'i'_V_'  .

BETWEEN:

Mr. C.P. Mohammedali Shihezb R_ K }
S/0. Sri Abcfurahirnan C.P. "  '
Aged about 19 years V    - 
R0. C.P. Manzik;        
Kannamangalam V365-ii. (PO)   ._ I .
Via AR. Ne1gi§1r. M"a1éi}3'pur3L'H:I'nDi::1.rict'~  

Kerala Stat? 6'?6"3@_;'§_  PETITIONER

{By Sri. A.P.__ sas1e:1a.--a_fan» w.AdV.;

AND:

 . .1 .  '*~;rhc: ,Q:a.%ai;~;1m'n  %%%%% M «

_ "'Fhé' f}\d1_'i'm;1is1.;'211'ive Me1nager1';en.'t. College
  
 C arnf3us:  8"'? Km. Barmerghatia Road
. "i'§a1keré[f_ 
'~.Bang£ii0r'e - 560 083

 A The=F'i'in(_:i.p21l Sectreialy

I 'Cgovi. of Kxamaiaka
"  E£ducatio11 Department
Vidhan Soudha



Bangalore -- 560 001

3. The Regional Director

All India Council for Technical
Elciucation [AlCTE)

South Regional Office   ».
Health Centre Building '_ 
Bangalore University Campus :
Bangalore ---- 560 009 '

-4-. The Vice Chancellor
Bangalore Universi__t'y     
Bangalore -- 560 O{)'3~.__  _ A  .__ ,.,"RESPONDENTS

Sri. B. Manohar. AGA for.:R'~'2-- 
Sr1'.N.B. Bhat,  R23 1: . 1
Smt. Sujatha.'_Adv.§ior_ R4} 

[By Sri. VA. Mohan Rangaml-.l    

Thisi'iN"rit'ii>eii'£fiA:o'n i's._iiied i'i_'haér Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution:oi: Iindiae. "-pra-yiiig to issue the migration
certificate._and t'1'ansfei1certificate afresh and etc.

'Fl1~is_Writ. Petit'i'on coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'

.---.§3rot,1_;)5t;l1is'day. the C..r_).i.i.1'i made the following:
ORDER

.ll})€.l:E’:”Li0I1€?ET was admitted to the l-‘*1 respondent –

ll lllC()1’1eige.&f”orllt.he study of Post Graduate Course in M.Sc. {Bio-

for the academic: session 2008~2009.

F

2. It is contended that at the time of his adniissioii. he

had submitted his SSLC. PUC and degree certiI’icat,es:/’1=fia.rIts

Card. niigratioii Certificrate and transfer c.:ertiI’ica-fie”togollegefe M

It is further contended that he had 5;;

Rs.78.000/- at the time of his a’d’rI1i:ssion ii>wit1;._the”

college. Since his admissioh._V'”wfas rit,-t appVro_v’e.d””‘by’ the ”

Competent authority. hereqtiested”ther.Co11ege-to return the
aforesaid doeumerits a’i1d.. the§,V;1ni’oti:1t.i in a sum of
Rs.78.000/~ deposited by”‘i’iind1″ the t.ii”:1cjToi’ his admission.

However. the4..CiQ11€?::§e_._i_did’:not__1’et._tihr;. theiieertificates and the

aforesaid’aii”iod;f1t’. “f;§’1?iei*€t'{fg§i'(=. heuhas fiied this writ petition
seeking 23.’ di.rect.io11«.»”to :th_é”rCcr11ege to return the aforesaid

documents and ” a Vst1rii–._oi’=i§s.78.OOO/– deposited by him at:

‘”~,_1l1e t°in1F3._ £11’ hisV’~–a–d1hissioh and also for award of

7.,c§os1sipe.r1sz1A1’eioiVi”.~ xi ‘ ~–

V__i;earfr1ed Counsel for the petitioner submits that he

does not.’up”1’ess the writ petiti.on in so far as i’:}1e award of

_eompe.iAisatioi1 concrerried. It is further submitted t’hat the

§

iii

College has illegally admitted the pei.ii’i0ner to eou’r’s–e in

question. The University did not approve his aidVm,iss.ion;V;~

he was not eligible for admission to the ”saidjfeol’urse..l_ ”

Therefore. he has requested t.he””Coil-ege”–, to

eertificaies submitted by him at the i’in’1:e_0i” hisadfnissionas’r

they are necessary to get adn’.1iss.i:’o”nt:o shomehlotehjexr It
is ftlrther submitted t’aha,t…the reft1nd’ed””a sum of
Rs.28,000/~ during the writ petition.

Therefore, the College of Rs.50,000/–

in the petitio_n*e§i’e.Q”. l I

rnjei ist.VTV”ms’poViid,:eii.tCollege has not filed any

objections wrii The 4″‘ respondent has filed

Obj€Cti3’t)l1fS_xlCQIII€lld’ii’l;g…lfl}’al the petitioner was not eligible ior

l”.’Va.:iifii’iss.iovn i~o’t.h°e’ course in question.

A _i~t~ isje\.lrider1t’. from the materials on record that the

~’«.___lpetit.ionei*.V__Was admitted to the College for the study of

it VPl.t3;Co’iJrse in M.Sc. (Bio–eheri’1istry) for the academic session

The assertion of the peiit:i.oner ihat: he had

‘i

-at

submiited the aio1’esaid doemnents and had de~.posiieV(iVa_ s1iz1’1

of Rs.78.000/- with the 1*’ respondeni.wCollege _

admission has not’ been denied by the Coilege……A(*}rfii’i-{ed_ly, 2:” ‘

sum of Rs.28.000/– has been re1L13;:11ed_:A’t5y. the”:

filing of this writ peiition. TE’h_e1″eI’or”-fr. “the ‘hers ute

retum the aforesaid d()c:L1n1e’rii”:e:V”1-ind aE2§sun’1 of
Rs.5O,OO0/W to the petit,io1’1.e1’. i

6. in the result. and it is
accordingly aliciWeeiVL.:o:”} direeii to return the
SSLC. PUC cards. migration
CerE’ii’icei–i_io11.-irei1i$f7e>_:r’«1et<i.ii2i'e.:3.1.e -'SUbI"l1iH€d by the petitiorler

211 the time._LoI7 his a1tki1i.sé'i–c)ri and also to refund 2} sum of

Rs.5O;.jOOQ/V period of four weeks from the date of

recap: r;:_o"p._y of this order. No Costs.

éfiflfm
Eudge