Dismissed

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri v. the Registrar

Madras HC4 Sept 2018WP/8163/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a university's notice to cancel MDS admission for producing a fake provisional certificate. The court held the petition premature and denied immediate declaration of genuineness, advising the petitioner to approach the first respondent substantively.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the declaration of genuineness of the provisional certificate was denied; liberty given to raise contentions before the university.

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri Vs the Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.09.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.8163 of 2011 and W.M.P.No.1 to 3 of 2018

¶6

Dr. Vyoma Tewari ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Registrar,

¶9

Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research,(Meenakshi Uniersity),

¶10

No. 12, Vembuliamman Koil Street,

¶11

West K.K.Nagar,

¶12

Chennai – 600 078.

¶13

The Principal,

¶14

Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Alappakkam Main Road,

¶15

Maduravoyal,

¶16

Chennai – 602 102.

¶17

The Controller of Examinations,

¶18

Bhavnagar University, University Campus, Gaurishanker Lake Road, Bhavnagar,

¶19

Gujarat – 364 002.

¶20

The Vice Chancellor, Bhavnagar University, University Campus, Gaurishanker Lake Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – 364 002. ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction in the nature of the Writ and after calling for the records connected with the letter reference: MAHER/450/2011 dated 02.03.2011 issued by the first respondent and letter Ref:

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

MAHER/450/2011 dated 15.03.2011 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and further direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to declare the petitioner's BDS Provisional Certificate dated 26.10.2009 as genuine and valid.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam

¶25

For R1 and R2 :No Appearance For R3 and R4 :Mr. D. Prabhumukunth Arun Kumar

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 02.03.2011 and 15.03.2011 issued by the first respondent and to direct the third and fourth respondents to declare the petitioner's BDS Provisional Certificate dated 26.10.2009 as genuine and valid.

¶28

2 The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 02.03.2011 issued by the first respondent University, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner admission to MDS course shall not be cancelled and why criminal action should not be taken against the petitioner for production of a fake Provisional Degree Certificate for getting admission in the MDS Degree course for the academic year 2010-2011.

¶29

3 Consequent to the show cause notice, the first respondent informed the petitioner, requesting to appear for a personal hearing before the first respondent committee on 23.03.2011. Hence, the petitioner before this Court has also challenged the notice for attending enquiry, which is in relation to the show cause notice issued earlier on 02.03.2011. It is not the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is not competent and has no jurisdiction to pass an order as contemplated in the show cause notice. It is for the petitioner to submit his reply and to convince the first respondent that the action proposed by the first respondent is totally unwarranted or illegal. There is no ground made out in this Writ Petition to challenge the show cause notice or notice of enquiry.

¶30

4 This writ petition is pre-matured. Further, the relief is for the declaration of the genuineness of the provisional certificate obtained by the petitioner and that is a matter which has to be considered purely on merits on various facts. Hence, this writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner seeks consequential relief which has to be considered by the first respondent University based on documents and factual submissions. Liberty is given to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the first respondent.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

5 In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar mpa/rpl

¶36

To 1. The Registrar, Meenakshi Academy off Higher Education and Research,(Meenakshi Uniersity), No. 12, Vembuliamman Koil Street, West K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. 2. The Principal, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Alappakkam Main Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 602 102. 3. The Controller of Examinations, Bhavnagar University, University Campus, Gaurishanker Lake Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – 364 002. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Bhavnagar University, University Campus, Gaurishanker Lake Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat – 364 002. +1cc to M/S.S.Arunachalam Associates, Advocate Sr.60833 +1cc to M/S.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, Advocate Sr.60999

¶37

W.P.No.8163 of 2011

¶38

srg 24/09/2018

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri v. the Registrar

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

N.a.M.Matriculation School, Vs The Directorate of

The Quiade Milleth Educational Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.R.Rithvik, Vs The Government of India

Dr.S.Thangavelu, Vs Medical Council of India

Tamil Nadu Self Financing Vs The Secretary

E.Nagalakshmi, Vs The Secretary to Government