Bhashantara Samshodhane vs Kannada Vishvavidyalaya Hampi on 11 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Bhashantara Samshodhane vs Kannada Vishvavidyalaya Hampi on 11 March, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal

DATED THIS THE 1 1:» DAY OF MARCH 2969  7   


THE HONBLE 'MR. JUSTICE }¥JI'§':_AJ'.'§C}{§"T'£g}P. I,  

wan' PETITION NO. 1 19:31}2ooss(EdnéRég;.P) 

Bhashantam Samshodhancf' '
Mattu Tarabethi Samsthe;  _  ' - _ 
No.948, 42nd c:;oss,'jz_4th;Ma,in; -  "
3rd Block, Rajajinagér, . K 
Baxlgalerem 3.0;  .   V'
Repmsentcgi by_its1'«:_; '

Executivfé P1*e'-.'«*,i.c;?a5<-*:z'1t,"i:'}V   _
Shri Venkatfiah ._ ' ~ '

Aged about 45  _   ...PETI'I'IONER

(By SI'i.i5a;§.a;11i~a  Pégxibnat, Adv.)


1}. Kaxlfaacia. Vfishvavidyaiaya,
‘i~iampi, ‘Vijdyaranya,

, Post.:..Kama1apur,

Tq: Hospet, Dist:Be11ary,

” * Repmsented by its

A’ = I<':egistrar.

The Director,

Distance Educatirm Center
Kannada Vishvavidyalaya,
Hampi, Vidyaranya,

year?.Ci0t’>~O7. agreement was entered into between

the the 2115 respondent for a perioé of two

the Pe1:it:ioner’s Organrm tion as ‘Distance
Qjflifiiiegxtion Study Center’ of the 18* respondent –
‘ The petitioner was required to send Course

‘V V 4 of all the students to the University. It appears that

Kamalapur, Post:Kama}apur,
Taluk: Hospet, Di$t.Be11a1y. …RESPONf.2E§’i.’S.__

(By Sri.M.Aswathanarayat1a Roddy, 5
for one: &R2) ”

This writ petition is filed me. 226
227 of the Constitution of Inaia with a prayer to quzssh
the canceilation order dated -.._1’i’._6.20U8 the
R1 vide Annexure ‘P’. ‘

This writ :«’=.1’or
hearing in ‘B’ Group, this’ da;,7r,; made the


Thee__V[v2″~dj’ ‘- a publication on

12. 10.25906 from the Students for

various Courses for the Academic

10.2006 to 12.10.2098 in respect of

was not done. A writ petition was filed before this %

us to the next question as to what

z appearing for the respondent all the
Vvixiho have taken admission to the petie’oner-
can be accommodated in one of the Centres
the respondent –» University on their payment of some

nominai amount. The respondents also assure the

– 3 –

9. Another factor which is required to be taken

note of is that the agreement to run the contact .4
was only for a period of two years, which has M

12.10.2008. Indeed it is not necessary”for V

examine any further as to tliedireasensifeij
the petitioner-Insf,it1:tion…z It notieedftliat if
a dispute arises inter and the
respondents, that there is
an arbit:ra£[ exercised by either
of the parties–. of the View that the
_ the mtitioner-

institution cannot

the students. As submitted by the

Court that they wili conduct the necessary Contact fl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *