Disposed

Sri a Rajendran v. Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2022WP/8185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No.8185/2022, filed by students seeking a golden opportunity for backlog LL.B. exams, the Karnataka High Court directed the Karnataka State Law University to address petitioners' grievances and submit appropriate orders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.1 to address petitioners' grievances and take appropriate orders within three weeks.

Sri a Rajendran Vs Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.8185/2022 (EDN-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.A.RAJENDRAN S/O APPASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.11, SWAMINATHAN STREET THORAIYUR, STREET, THIRUCHI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU – 621010 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

¶8

SMT.K.N.NIRMALADEVI W/O SARVANAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.5/204, CHERAN NAGAR CHIKKADASAMPALYAM METTUPALYAM, COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU-641301 HOUSEWIFE.

¶9

SRI.M.SELVAKUMAR S/O MANGALANADHADURAI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.1/123, MS K NAGAR VELIPATTINAM, RAJASURIMADAI RAMANATHAPURAM TAMIL NADU-623504 OCCUPATION: CIVIL CONTRACTOR

¶10

SRI.P.M.SHAHUL HAMEED FATHER’S NAME P.A.MUHAMMED SULTHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO.212, EAST MAIN ROAD LABBAIKDIKADU POST KUNNAM T.K., PERAMBALUR DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-621108 OCCUPATION: DOCUMENT WRITER

¶11

²

¶12

SRI.PETER JOHN S/O PILAVENDRAN NO.3/526, SILON COLLONY PARAMAKUDIPONNAYAMPURAM PARAMKUDI TALUK RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU-623707 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCCUPATION: REAL ESTATE

¶13

THIRUMARAN.R S/O K.RAJAMANICKAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.33, SATHIYA SAIRAM NAGAR-02 C.THANDESWARANALLUR, CHIDAMBARAM CUDDALORE DISTRICT-608001. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.SANMATHI.E.I., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA-560025

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR COLLEGE OF LAW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN NO.2, 5^TH MAIN ROAD SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-560021 …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2; SRI.GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O. DTD 14.09.2022)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO WRITE LLB

¶20

³

¶21

EXAMS PERTAINING TO RESPECTIVE BACKLOG PAPERS OF PETITIONERS BY PROVIDING ONE MORE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO IN THE YEAR 2022; AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioners have sought for

¶25

the following reliefs:

¶26

“A. Issue writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to write L.L.B exams pertaining to respective backlog papers of petitioners by providing one more golden opportunity which is scheduled to in the year 2022.

¶27

B. Issue any other writ or direction or to grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost.

¶28

C. Issue writ of mandamus or direction to respondent No.1 consider representations submitted by vide Annexure-J.”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶31

⁴

¶32

respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 6 have submitted representation at Annexure-J dated 12.04.2022 to respondent No.1 and that the remaining petitioners would also submit a representation ventilating their grievance within a period of two weeks from today.

¶34

4. Submission of the learned counsel for

¶35

the petitioners is placed on record.

¶36

Accordingly, petition is disposed of

¶37

directing the respondent No.1 – University to address the grievances of the petitioners as ventilated in the representation at Annexure-J as well as representation to be submitted by the remaining petitioners, within a period of three weeks from today and take appropriate

¶38

⁵

¶39

decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶40

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

NC.

Sri a Rajendran v. Karnataka State Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Rajendran v. Karnataka State Law University

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

Dilip Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Varsha D Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.Nivedeetha K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohith R S Vs the Principal

Nebula Technologies Vs Treistek Technologies LLP

Suresh Kumar Kothari Vs the Income Tax Officer