Dismissed

Sri.Rajendra Pattar S/O Ishwarappa Pattar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2019WA/100106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a law student seeking an order to permit him to appear for final examinations held in June/July 2017. The Court held that the student had exceeded the six-year completion period and failed to utilize an extended opportunity granted in 2015. The Court ruled it could not direct respondents to act contrary to university regulations or circulars. The app

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order dated 06.12.2017 dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Sri.Rajendra Pattar S/O Ishwarappa Pattar Vs the State… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

W.A. NO.100106 OF 2018 (EDN-EX)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI RAJENDRA PATTAR, S/O ISHWARAPPA PATTAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MELLEVANTHI, TQ: GOKA590007, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.S.G.KADADAKATTI AND SRI.LINGESH V KATTEMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND

¶14

1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU-560001.

¶15

2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-581013, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

¶17

3.THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LAW UNIVERSITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-581013, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

4.THE PRINCIPAL, RAJA LAKHAMANAGOUDA LAW COLLEGE, TILAKAWADI, BELGAVI-590006.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PARYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LEANRED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.22333/2017.

¶22

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Though there is a delay of 73 days in filing

¶25

the appeal, we have, nevertheless heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits.

¶26

The legality and correctness of order dated 06.12.2017 passed in W.P.No.22333/2017 is questioned in this appeal.

¶27

¶28

According to the appellant he joined

¶29

three years’ law degree course in the fourth respondent law college, in the academic year 2009-2010. The said course is for a period of three years, which is up to 2011-2012. However, according to the regulation governing three years LL.B. basic course in law, issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Karnataka State Law University, Navanagar, Hubballi to which the fourth respondent institution is affiliated, students may successfully complete the entire course within six years from the date of admission of the course. Admittedly, the appellant did not complete his course within three years duration of the course and subsequently, he has not completed even after a lapse of six years. In the circumstance, the learned single Judge has held that no direction could be issued to the respondents to consider the representation made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition seeking permission to pay the

¶30

¶31

examination fee and to appear in the examination to be held in June/July-2017. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though six years time was stipulated to complete three years degree course in law, subsequently there was an amendment (2^nd amendment), 2015, to regulation 14(C) to make available the candidates who have not successfully completed the degree course within six years, extended two more consecutive opportunities to complete the course. But, the appellant did not avail of the same. Consequently, Circular dated 04/05-04-2017 has been issued stating that those students who were admitted for three years LL.B. course in the academic year 2009 (2009 batch) are not permitted to appear for the examination held in June/July 2017. He submits that the said Circular has deprived the appellant an opportunity

¶33

¶34

to appear in the examination conducted in

¶35

June/July-2017 and thereby complete this course.

¶36

We are not impressed by the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant. Regulation 14(c) has stipulated six years as time line to complete three years LL.B. course. Admittedly, the appellant has not completed his LL.B. course in the said time line. The amendment to regulation 14(c) granted a second opportunity to the students such the appellant herein to complete their course, appellant did not avail of the said opportunity. Thereafter, Circular dated 04/05-04-2017 has been issued, which clarifies that the students who are admitted in the academic year 2009 batch to complete three years LL.B. course are not entitled any further opportunity to appear in the examination conducted in June/July-2017.

¶37

¶38

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. Further this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the Respondents University or the college to act contrary to its regulation as well as Circular.

¶39

We do not find any merits in the appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2018 is also dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Vb/-

Sri.Rajendra Pattar S/O Ishwarappa Pattar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Rajendra Pattar S/O Ishwarappa Pattar v. the 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.Ishwarappa H Kurubara Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Maruthi Chemicals and Fertilizers Vs M/S.Rashtriya Chemicals

Smt. Veena W/O. Basavaraj Mamadapur Vs Shri. Basavaraj S/O. Chandrashekhar Mamadapur

Shivabasappa Jangannavar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M M Pattanshetty Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt. Divya W/O Tippesh Halli Vs Smt. Jayamma W/O Patreppa Halli