Single line order directing the University of Delhi to decide specific representations and emails submitted by the petitioner within six weeks, clarifying no opinion was expressed on the merits.
Direction to respondent to decide petitioner's representations and emails within six weeks. No opinion on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
NARENDER KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Harsh Vardhan with Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 09.03.2016
Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- A) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature of certiorari to Respondents to call the records pertaining to the petitioner’s candidature of the M.B.A. program (part Time); and
B) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to declare the result of Part III of the M.B.A. program (part Time) in accordance with law; and
C) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to award the degree of to the petitioner of the M.B.A. program (part Time) from the way back February 2014 as per the other students, in case the petitioner found pass all the papers of program, in accordance with law; and
D) Pass such and other orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is stated that petitioner had filed an initial writ petition being W.P.(C) 5438/2012 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the University and to consider his case on sympathetic basis.
Learned counsel for petitioner states that thereafter petitioner has given various letters/representations, but the same have not been disposed of.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner’s representations dated 24th February, 2014, 6th March, 2014, 28th March, 2014, 9th April, 2014, 10th June, 2014, 30th June, 2014, 28th November, 2014, 4th January, 2015, 29th June, 2015, 28th September, 2015 and e-mails dated 8th February, 2016, 9th February, 2016, 10th February, 2016, 11th February, 2016, 12th February, 2016 and 15th February, 2016 within a period of six weeks. It is clarified that the said representations and e-mails have been annexed to the present writ petition.
However, this Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 09, 2016 KA
NARENDER KUMAR YADAV
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
MANMOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
