The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition under Article 226 directing the Principal of a college to permit the petitioner to attend classes. The court held that restraining a student without issuing a charge memo or conducting an enquiry is illegal.
Petition allowed; third respondent directed to permit petitioner to attend classes and resume study.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2019
T.Veerapandi Athipathi ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palgalai Nagar, Madurai.
3.The Principal, Sowrashtra College, Pasumalai Post, Vilacherry, Madurai. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the regular classes and examinations on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 21.01.2019 on the file of the respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh for Mr.J.Selvin Rajesh For R1 : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.Amaljin for M/s.Issac Chambers For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel either side.
2.The writ petitioner was undergoing the BBA Course in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ third respondent college. When he was studying in the fifth semester, some controversy appears to have arisen. On 23.08.2018,
2
the college Principal called the writ petitioner to his room and instructed him that he should not attend classes thereafter. The petitioner has been sending representations to various authorities. One such representation dated 21.01.2019 is enclosed in the typed set of papers. Since it was not considered, this writ petition came to be filed.
3.Eventhough the third respondent College has been served and the name is printed, there is no appearance on behalf of the college.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not issued with any charge memo and no enquiry was conducted. He was not served with any expulsion order.
5.These averments stand unrebutted. If the third respondent wanted to take disciplinary action against the writ petitioner, it ought to follow the usual procedure. In this case, even without serving an expulsion order, the writ petitioner has been restrained from attending the classes. This approach of the third respondent is clearly illegal. Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to issuance of writ of mandamus as sought for. The third respondent shall permit the writ petitioner to attend the classes and resume the study.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
To
The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. +1cc to Mr.J.SELVIN RAJESH,Advocate, SR.No.52523 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No. 52673
W.P.(MD)No.4030 of 2019 07.03.2019
PNN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ KK/SAR-/11.03.2019/2P-4C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the college could legally restrain the petitioner from attending classes without issuing a charge memo or conducting an enquiry.
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus to permit him to resume studies.
Whether the third respondent's approach of restraining attendance without an expulsion order is illegal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Veerapandi Athipathi
The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education
The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University
The Principal, Sowrashtra College
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
