Dismissed

Garden City College v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2014WP/3847/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging admissions denied to students at Garden City College came before the High Court during a preliminary hearing. The college accepted that permission was granted if a penalty was paid and requested withdrawal of the petition with liberty to challenge the penalty separately.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with liberty to file fresh petitions to question the penalty imposed for regularization of admissions.

Garden City College Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS. 3847 – 3854 OF 2014 (EDN-AD)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Garden City College 16^th K.M., Old Madras Road Bangalore – 560049 Represented by its Principal Prof. N. Bharathi Aged about 43 years D/o. L. Nanada

¶9

R/a. Bangalore

¶10

Asif Baig A. Son of late Aslam Baig R. Aged about 26 years

¶11

Ayushi Girdhar

¶12

D/o. Naveen Girdhar Aged about 22 years

¶13

Khwairakpam Roji Devi D/o. Nungshi Babu Singh Aged about 21 years

¶14

Upama Banerjee D/o. Partha Banerjee Aged about 23 years

¶15

¶16

Athira Harikumar

¶17

D/o. Harikumar M.

¶18

Aged about 22 years

¶19

Reuel Chinthala S/o. Joshua Chinthala Aged about 24 years

¶20

Jeyaraj yathukulan S/o. T. Jeyaraj Aged about 26 years

¶21

Petitioners 2 to 8 are Students prosecuting 1^st Semester post-graduate degree courses At Garden City College, 16^th K.M. Old Madras Road Bangalore - 560049

¶22

... PETITIONERS

¶23

(By Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, Advocate) AND

¶24

State of Karnataka Department of Higher Education M.S.Building Represented by its Secretary Bangalore - 560001

¶25

Bangalore University Jnana Bharathi Bangalore – 560056 Represented by its Registrar

¶26

The Registrar (Evaluation) Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi Bangalore – 560056

¶27

... RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.11.1.2014 AS PER ANNX-H ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF HOLDING ADMISSIONS OF PETITIONER NO.2,3,4 & 5 AS EXCESSIVE ADMISSIONS; & QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.11.1.2014 AS PER ANNX-H1 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF HOLDING ADMISSIONS OF PETITIONER NO.6 & 7 AS EXCESSIVE ADMISSIONS & QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.11.1.2014 AS PER ANNX-H2 ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF HOLDING ADMISSION OF PETITIONER NO.8 AS EXCESSIVE ADMISSION; (B) DECLARE THAT UNIVERSITY HAS NO SUCH QUOTA NOR THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO NOTIFY ANY QUOTA FOR ITSELF OR FIX A FEES STRUCTURE; OR REGULATING ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE COURSES BEING IMPARTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE AFFILIATION GRANTED TO IT, BY THE R-1; AND (C) DECLARE THAT THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 AS VALIDLY MADE, REQUIRING APPROVAL BY THE UNIVERSITY & FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO APPROVE ALL THE ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF THE STATEMENT OF ADMISSIONS, SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND NOT TO TREAT ADMISSIONS MADE AGAINST UN-FILLED SEATS AS NOT PERMITTED OR ILLEGAL.

¶30

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioners who had sought to question the denial of the admission of students to the College, now states that permission has been granted, subject to payment of penalty of Rs.15,000/- per student. Therefore the petitioners seek to withdraw the petitions, with liberty to question the penalty imposed, by way of separate petitions. Accordingly the petitions are dismissed, with liberty to file fresh petitions, if so warranted.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Rd/-

Garden City College v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garden City College v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Herale Vs State of Karnataka

Dell India Private Limited Vs Nil

Sonicwall Bv - India Branch Vs Nil

Acharya Institute of Graduate Studies Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Reedyjana Sanghas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Gangadhar Vs State of Karnataka