Gujarat High Court High Court

Dipen vs Saurashtra on 5 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dipen vs Saurashtra on 5 March, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/2836/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2836 of 2010
 

 
=============================================


 

DIPEN
RASIKBHAI MAKADIA, DIRECTOR OF ENVISION EDUCATION PVT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SAURASHTRA
UNIVERSITY & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=============================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NIRZAR S DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5. 
============================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/03/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

According
to the petitioner, it is running a Study Centre but the first
respondent University raided the centre of the petitioner in
association with the Centum Learning Limited and thereby causing
harassment to the petitioner. Prayer has been made to direct the
first respondent to allow the petitioner to run its study centre
without any disturbance.

Learned
counsel for the petitioner referred to the notice dated 29th
June 2009 whereby the petitioner’s institute has been informed that
the area in which the petitioner is running institute is covered
under the jurisdiction of Saurashtra University and under Section
5(1) and 5(4) of the Saurashtra University Act, it is compulsory to
get `No Objection Certificate’ from the Government and recognition
from the University which has not been received by the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has been asked to produce certain
particulars and information including the documents relating to
recognition, if any, granted by the University. It was contended by
the Counsel for the petitioner that Saurashtra Unviersity has no
jurisdiction to have any control over the Study Centre run by the
petitioner, it not being an institute as it is not imparting any
education and not conducting any examination, it is just like a
coaching institute.

In
the present case, it will be evident that the petitioner has been
only served with the show cause notice dated 29.06.2009 and has been
asked to produce certain particulars and information. In this
background, instead of deciding the case on merits, we allow the
petitioner to take all the plea before the respondent-University who
after hearing the petitioner will decide the matter by reasoned
order. The petitioner is allowed two weeks’ time to file show cause
reply and may produce the relevant record in support of its claim.
Direct Service is permitted.

Special
Civil Application stands disposed of.

(S.

J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J. )

(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )

kailash

   

Top