Disposed

Dipak Bhausaheb Khilari and 3 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2007NMW/483/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Notice of Motion sought a substitution of directions. The Court accepted that the Students' Grievance Committee had referred the matter to the Board of Examinations, which subsequently decided the issue. The Court ordered the Board to communicate the final decision to the Petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Board of Examinations directed to communicate final decision to Petitioners within one week.

Dipak Bhausaheb Khilari and 3 Ors. Vs University of Mumbai and 2 Ors. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.483 OF 2007 IN WRIT PEITION NO.1818 OF 2007

¶4

Dipak Bhausaheb Khilari & Ors. Versus University of Mumbai & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioners.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr.Rui Rodriques for the Applicant in Notice of Motion. Mr. Mihir Desai for Respondent No.3.

¶8

Ms.Salomi Desai i/b. M/s.M.P. Vashi & Asso. for the Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶10

October 1, 2007.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This Notice of Motion is taken out by Respondents 1 and 2

¶13

for the following relief:

¶14

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to substitute the directions given to Student Grievance Committee with a direction to the Board of Examinations to take decision within a period of 2 weeks.”

¶15

¶16

We are informed by the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 that on the date on which we passed the instant order i.e. 30^th August 2007, the Students' Grievance Committee had already heard the Petitioners and the Students' Grievance Committee had made a reference to the Board of Examinations. None of the

¶17

parties was aware of that fact and therefore, in our order, we have stated that the Students' Grievance Committee had heard the Petitioners on 9^th August 2007 and was yet to pass the order. In view of the statement made by the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 which is not disputed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, we take the statement made by the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 on record that the Students' Grievance Committee had heard the Petitioners on 9^th August 2007 and had made a reference to the Board of Examinations which is statutorily empowered to take a decision in that regard. We

¶18

¶19

are informed that the Board of Examinations has now taken the final

¶20

decision. The decision taken by the Board of Examinations may be communicated to the Petitioners within one week.

¶21

Motion is disposed of.

¶22

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶23

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Dipak Bhausaheb Khilari and 3 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Bhausaheb Khilari and 3 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kanta Prasad Gupta Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Anr.

Vishwanth D. Borkar Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.

Ramsuarat Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Anand Y. Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rohidas Gaurya Mhatre and 10 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Thru the Commissioner

Rev. S.B.Pathane and Ors. Vs Rev. Daniyal R. Bhandare and Ors.