are THE HIGH court' or KARNATAKA
cmcun BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 14''" am or: JULY, 2003
:BEFORE:
THE Honms MR. JUSTSCE mg PATlL,u":r '_
W.P.NO. 16397 of 2097 (Em-§g)%% C %
BETWEEN: ' _
'WSHNU M. ma AGED ABOUT21 means"
3:0 MADHAV ms _ .
WAT 3SL05TXO'i{} HOTEL PRWA
STATEON RGAD RAECHQR _
V " PETFHONER
{SRMSUFEURAJ JOSH! ADVOCATE F-QR ét§&T.f'3.ss:J}s:!TEjV:";gA ADVDCATE)
AND: **** " _ L _ b
1. THE REGasT¥éAs{"(évATLUTAT:e.N} -
VESV-S?.SWARA§AH'TEISHNOEOGQCAL UNEVERSFFY
BELGALJM TKfi«F{N.ATAKA_STATE 1ND!A.
'E T:¢5. cHAi'RMAN ExECLaTT\iE courszca.
.. « :T;:svEswARA:-AHA TECHNOLOGICAL uzxuveasmr
- BELQAUM KARNA'FA&<A STATE ¥ND1A
V' . ''T:~:Ex<.:_CEVC;r£§;_b4cEu.oR
. -._vT'JES\:'ES*NAR25'.IAH TECHNOLOGJCAL UNIVERSITY
A _ BELGAUMKARNATAKA STATE swam
13 ".<-:v,rai"LLEr3E OF ENGTNEERTNG
RASLHUR DIST. KARNATAKA STATE ENDSA
V " RESPONDENTS
. {:::.R”:.a,A.sAvAPRAaHzJ s. PATIL ADV. FOR R4 TO 3
* SR1, PRAVEEN KUMAR RA1KO”?”E ADV. FOR $2.43
TH1S WRIT PETITEON {S FILED UNDER ARTFCLES 226 AND 227 O?
‘4 THE CONSTETUTEQN 93’: ENDEA, PRAYENG Ti): QUASH ANNEXURE-A QRDER
SATED 7.9.2007 §~”ASSEE3 BY THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATSGN)
ViSVE9NARAiAH ?EC§~{NOLOG§CAL UNi’u’ERS¥TYs BELGAUM AND DSRECT
‘%’HE RESPONBENTS TO GRANT PERMiSS%ON T0 APPEAR IN ALL HIS
EX25iMiNATlON FOR WHKIH HE ES DEBARRED AS PER ?HE WPUGNED
ORDER LE. DECS”?! JAN 08, JUNEEJULY 2008 DEC.€38fJA¥’~l.E395 JUvffJEi?_J§”3%,Y
09, DEC.U9!JAN,20’i 0 AND JUNEAJULY 2010 EXAMNATIONS.
ms wen’ FETITSQN COMENG ON FQF2 PRELiMlNfi;S§¥’H’i:’§:§gi€:Ib§ia.’§-V _
%N ‘B’ GROUP THSS DAY, THE COURT MASE THE FOLLOW!N€’3.:’ V
:ORDE§;'” . A
The petitioner was
Textiie Teohnoiogy in ‘eiresoonidentfiéoilege,
questioning the correoinieesii’.£}f3=Vt3tne’VifAn.r’:-exure-A dated
7.9.2907 paeeed’:-. ii (Evaluation)
Visveewaraiehii1.’T’eoiinoi’og-io’ei.__ Belgaum, has
petitioner has sought
to direct’feeponoen’ie”i,o’:’gif’ent permission to appear in aii
his ,.e§<eniEnatio'r1.._VVfor which he is debarred as per the
i.e. Dec.07IJan.08; June/Juiy 2008;
oe§.o3/J§éioe:% June/Juiy oe, Deo.O9l.3en.2{)1O and
“._’J{}fie”/JLV!iY;. O examinations.
i have heard learned counsel appearing for
in’**–“.j’Hpetitioner-Sri. Gururaj Jeshi, appearing for Smt. S.
Sueheeie, for some ‘time. Surfing the course of his
-3-
submission, he submitted that, the instant writ petition
fiied by petitioner may be dismissed as withdruaa§gn,_k
reserving liberty to the petitioner to redress his _
before the respondents-1 to 3 andwaii the”cerite:riti:bns it
Lirged in this writ petitien may be ke;::’t’o;:.:’je’r1.i’ A
3. The submission iearned:’AA”e;d’unsei
appearing for petitioneres stetedi’L_:*sLt;2r’a .’is”p!esvied on
record. it it i it it it
4. The writibjetitioiji is dismissed
as withdra’vJr3,’- r.:e?§s_er*}:1E-fig tethe petitioner to redress
his grievense befbre.the_:”ef:s.;)ropriate Authbrity of the
respondents– Urzixfershity. A i
– lei: bententvivbnis urged by petitioner in this writ
. ‘*
Ordered accerdingly.
Judge