Dismissed¶24

Sabyasachi Dutt v. Madhusudan Law University

Orissa HC11 Nov 2024WP(C)/22112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ petition maintainability; individual aggrievement / locus standi; general averments as if PIL; re-evaluation and re-checking of answer scripts; no provision for reevaluation of answer sheets; LLB 3-year course June 2024 examination; 207 students declared fail in P-III Mediation (with Conciliation); alleged examination malpractices and irregularities; RTI application for evaluated answer script and model answer script; Madhusudan Law University Cuttack; Gangadhar Mohapatra (GM) Law College; Orissa High Court; petition dismissed as thoroughly misconceived; coram Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ and Savitri Ratho, J.

What did the court decide?

The Court found it difficult, from the incoherent statement in the writ petition, to discern how the petitioner was individually aggrieved with the functioning of the University. ¶16

Sabyasachi Dutt Vs Madhusudan Law University — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 22112 of 2024

¶3

Sabyasachi Dutt

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Raja Kumar Pati, Advocate -versus-

¶6

Madhusudan Law University and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

11.11.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

The sole petitioner claims to be pursuing LLB Course in Gangadhar Mohapatra (GM) Law College (the ‘College’ in short) affiliated to Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack (the ‘University’ in short). The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking intervention of this Court to address grave irregularities, gross malpractices and other discrepancies in the University in collusion with the college.

¶16

At the outset, we are inclined to record that it is difficult from the incoherent statement made in the writ petition to discern as to how the petitioner is individually aggrieved with the functioning of the University. The averments with absurd logic have been made in the writ petition. Illustratively, the petitioner has asserted that in the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

3^rd year LLB Paper, every student of the University had got the same study material and sample questionnaire and, therefore, there was rare of the rarest possibility/scope of difference in the score of individual answer sheet of the students. With this absurdity in the pleadings, the petitioner has asserted that many of the students were declared as adopting malpractices and some shown as absent in one of the examination halls and 207 students were declared fail in third paper (P-III), i.e., Mediation (with Conciliation).

¶19

The petitioner claims that he had made an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for supply of evaluated answer script of the of the said paper and the model answer script.

¶20

To the above effect, the students of the University had made a detailed representation before the authority for re-checking/reevaluation of P-III, Mediation.

¶21

It transpires that the present writ petition is full of inconsistencies containing general averments as if the petitioner is pursuing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioner has sought for a direction, inter alia , to re-evaluate the answer scripts of third paper (P-III), Mediation (with Conciliation) in the 6^th Semester (Final Term) of 3 years LLB Examination of June, 2024.

¶22

Mr. Raja Kumar Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute that there is no provision for reevaluation of answer sheets.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

In our opinion, the present writ petition, at the instance of the sole petitioner, is thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly.

¶25

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶26

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶27

SK Jena/Secy.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Nov-2024 11:40:23

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Sabyasachi Dutt v. Madhusudan Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabyasachi Dutt v. Madhusudan Law University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Maheswar Behura

Abhisek Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Maruti Construction Company, Gujarat Vs State of Odisha

Madan Mohan Bakhla Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Sunita Barik