Disposed

Dr Surendra Singh Saggu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Aug 2019WPC/1093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a letter from Vinoba Bhave University stating the college was not affiliated. The court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to approach the Vice-Chancellor within two weeks, engaging the grievance within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the Vice-Chancellor with a representation within two weeks for consideration and ordered reasoned order within eight weeks.

Dr Surendra Singh Saggu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 1093 of 2016

¶3

Dr. Surendra Singh Saggu.

¶4

… … …Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.

¶8

Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O. Sadar, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.

¶9

Governing Body of Singhbhum Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, through its President Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, DistrictEast Singhbhum. … … …Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioner :Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate. For the State :Mrs. Chandra Prabha, S.C. I. For the University :Mr. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶13

¶14

04/ 26.08.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of letter as contained in Reference No.VBU/P/R/3528/18, dated 03.12.18 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder the Registrar has been pleased to inform the petitioner that Singhbhum Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Jamshedpur is presently not affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and so the University is not a competent body to take such decision in the matter. The Governing Body is appropriate body to take such decision in the matter.

¶15

At the very outset, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if a direction will be issued to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation so that decision can be taken by the Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh thus the grievance of the petitioner shall be mitigated.

¶16

Dr. A.K.Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 has no serious objection to that course of action.

¶17

¶18

After hearing learned Counsel for the respective parties, regard being had to the limited nature of grievance and without dwelling upon the merit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of giving a liberty to the petitioner to approach/file a representation before the competent authority i.e. ViceChancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh through respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the same, the Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter, result thereof shall also be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

P.K.S.

Dr Surendra Singh Saggu v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Surendra Singh Saggu v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Ram Karan Ram Vs Health

Md Firoz Khan Vs Ms Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Jay Prakash Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Jay Prakash Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Ram Nath Ram Vs Animal Husbandary Department

Jagdish Harijan Vs That Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director