Dismissed

Shri Binayak S/O Narayan Choudhary v. the Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Rastrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur and Anothers

Bombay HC13 Apr 2015WP/6021/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ direction for duplicate mark-sheets and degree certificate. The bench held that since his passing of examinations was seriously disputed due to fabricated document allegations and a specific claim that he failed the 8th semester, the matter could not be decided under writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue duplicate mark-sheets and degree certificate refused; writ petition dismissed with costs.

Shri Binayak S/O Narayan Choudhary Vs the Vice… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp6021.1 4

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6021 OF 2014

¶5

Binayak Narayan Choudhary

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj, Nagpur University and anr.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.H.I.Kothari, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Atul Pande, counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.A.R.Patil, counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M.BADAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 13.04.2015.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue duplicate mark-sheets and degree certificate to the petitioner in respect of his educational qualification i.e. B.E.(Civil).

¶14

The petitioner claims that he was a student of the respondent No.2 Viswesvaraya National Institute of Technology and was admitted in the B.E.(Civil) degree course in the Academic Session 1977-78. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had passed all the semester examinations conducted by the respondent No.2-Institute. It is stated that the petitioner had lost some of the mark-sheets and the degree certificate and hence, it is necessary to issue a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue the duplicate mark-sheets and degree certificate to the petitioner.

¶15

The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit-inreply. Though the respondent No.2 has not filed an affidavitin-reply, it is stated on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is stated that though the petitioner has passed in some of the semester examinations, the petitioner has not

¶16

2/2

¶17

wp6021.1 4

¶18

cleared the 8^th semester examination. It is stated that the petitioner has not submitted the correct information in regard to the 4^th , 6^th , and 7^th semester examinations which the petitioner claims to have cleared. It is stated that the petitioner has sought the degree certificate from the University on the basis of the fabricated documents. It is stated that the relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted in the aforesaid circumstances.

¶19

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the issue involved in this case cannot be decided, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner claims to have passed in all the semester examinations in B.E.(Civil) degree course. The said statement is seriously disputed by the respondents and it is stated that the petitioner has not cleared all the semesters of the B.E. Examination. It is stated that the petitioner has not passed the 8^th semester and the petitioner has fabricated the mark-sheets with a view to secure the degree certificate. The averments made by the petitioner in the petition have been seriously disputed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. We find that though the petitioner claims to have passed in the year 1987, the petitioner had not applied for the degree certificate for several years. Also, the University has issued a notice to the petitioner that a Police report could be filed against him for fabricating the mark-sheets. A direction cannot be issued to the respondents, in the circumstances of the case, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, to issue the duplicate mark-sheets and the degree certificate to the petitioner.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

KHUNTE

Shri Binayak S/O Narayan Choudhary v. the Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Rastrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Binayak S/O Narayan Choudhary v. the Vice Chancellor/Registrar, Rastrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Subashchandra Wamanrao Korpe Vs the Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank, through Its Branch Manager, Akola and Another

Kishore Bapuraoji Gulhane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharshtra, Rural Development Dept. Mumbai

Bhimaji S/O Patru Hanwate Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Waman M. Naitam Vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and 2 Others

Sau. Sunita W/O Rajendra Wadhe Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Buldhana and 3 Others

Kailas Rajeshwarrao Aware, and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Co. Operation, Mumbai and 5 Others