Dismissed

Karan Ahluwalia v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/6433/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a petition by a petitioner admitted in an MD seat, noting that the sought recognition for the seat has already been granted by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 via later letters, rendering the petition infructuous. Both the main petition and a pending application are disposed of without substantive adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The petition and pending application were dismissed as infructuous.

Karan Ahluwalia Vs Union of India and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6433/2017 & CM No.26619/2017 KARAN AHLUWALIA ..... Petitioner Through: None.

¶4

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, CGP with Mr.Vipul Agrawal & Mr.Anshuman Nayak, Advocates for R-1. Mr.T. Singhdev with Ms.Amandeep Kaur, Ms.Puja Sarkar, Mr.Tarun Verma & Mr.Abhijit Chakravarty, Advocates for R-2. Mr.Rahul Singh & Mr.Varun Lal, Advocates for R-3. Mr.Ashwani Kr. Dubey & Mr.Sanjeev Kr.Baliyan, Advocates for R-4.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶6

O R D E R % 10.01.2018

¶7

The petitioner who had taken admission in MD (Pediatrics) in respondent no.3/College, against a permitted seat, has filed the present petition primarily seeking a direction to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to grant status of recognized seat to the seat allotted to the petitioner by the Respondent Nos.3 for undertaking M.D. (Pediatrics).

¶8

Though none appears for the petitioner, Mr.Singhdev, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the relief sought by the petitioner already stands satisfied and the petition has become infructuous. He hands over a copy of letter dated 17.10.2017 written by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 recommending that, MD (Pediatrics) qualification against increased intake from 02 to 05 seats granted by Himachal Pradesh University in respect of students being trained at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, be recognized. He also hands over a copy of letter dated 18.12.2017 written by respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.3 whereby the respondent no.1 has accepted the recommendations of the respondent no.2 and approved the recognition of MD (Pediatrics) qualification for intake of 5 seats as against the original initial approved intake of 2 seats. The aforesaid letters produced by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 are taken on record.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid letters as also the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the petition is disposed of as infructuous.

¶10

The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶11

REKHA PALLI, J

¶12

JANUARY 10, 2018 gm

Karan Ahluwalia v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Ahluwalia v. Union of India and 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

Master Aarav Dewan Vs Modern School and Anr.

Jagdish Prakash and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Saroj Jain Vs Registrar of Corperative Societies and Ors.

Indian Wind Power Association Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Power and Anr.

M/S Automak Academy Vs Union of India & Ors.

International Fasteners through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Pio, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Vishwas Bhamburkar

Tula Ram Vs Delhi Power Co.Ltd. & Anr.

Master Aarav Dewan Vs Modern School and Anr.

Dipesh Jain Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Rohit Jain Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Vijay Kumar Bansal and Anr. Vs Land and Development Office and Anr.

Ashok Goel Vs Land and Development Office and Anr.

Vivek College of Sciences and Hospital, Bijnor Vs Union of India