Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7369/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7369 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
MOHAMMAD
SHOEB M. HAKIM - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ANAND
LAW COLLEGE & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MA KHARADI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RAMNANDAN
SINGH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PV HATHI for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 28/03/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
petitioner has preferred the petition for appropriate writ to direct
the respondent No.1 to accept the fees for the study of 1st
LLB and to permit him to attend the classes in 1st LLB at
Sardar Patel University. It is also prayed by the petitioner to
declare that total marks of more than 45% be declared as eligibile
criteria for admission of 1st LLB and he is not required
to appear at the examination.
When
the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Kharadi is not present and
Mr.Singh for the College and Ms.Hathi for Mr. P.V. Hathi for Bar
Council of Gujarat and Bar Council of India are present. It further
appears that this Court (Coram :R.M.Doshit, J.) on 04.10.2001 had
passed the following order:
?SRule. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured less than 45 per cent marks at the graduation level and hence, in view of Rule 1 (1)(a) in Part-IV Section-B of the rules of the Bar Council of India, the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the Law College. The question is whether the respondent-Law College could have given an entrance test only to such applicants who were otherwise not eligible for admission to Law College. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent-Law College could not have held entrance test only for such of the applicants who were not eligible for admission to Law College i.e., who had secured less than 45 per cent marks at the graduation level. Interim relief is, therefore, refused.??
Therefore,
the interim relief was expressly refused.
Under
these circumstances, even if the petitioner is to be considered for
admission, the petitioner has to meet with the prevailing
eligibility criteria for admission to 1st LLB. Further,
the period of about 4 years have passed and the curriculum period
for the said admission in 1st LLB had it been in 2001
would have been over in 2003 in any case.
Hence,
no useful purpose would be served in deciding the question raised in
this petition and the exercise if any undertaken would only be of
academic purpose.
Hence,
the present petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Rule discharged. I.R. vacated.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top
