Dismissed

Amar Fateh Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2012CWP/11249/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging admission denial sought fee concession under defence quota. Court noted petitioner did not pursue the purported M.Tech course but completed B.Tech, rendering the admission issue moot. Writ petition dismissed as no grievance remained.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petition dismissed with liberty to file fresh application for revival if grievance persists.

Amar Fateh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11249 of 2005 Date of Decision: October 10, 2012

¶3

Amar Fateh Singh

¶4

...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Mr.Y.P.Bhagirath, Advocate, for Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate,

¶13

for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr.B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 & 5.

¶15

Mr.K.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶16

Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶17

Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶18

¶19

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶20

On 14.5.2012, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was noticed to the extent that the petitioner has completed his M.Tech Course in the NRI quota. On this basis, it was stated that the only issue, as per the counsel, which would remain for consideration is whether the petitioner had a right to get admission in the quota meant for defence personnel and this would make a substantial difference in levy of fees, which, the petitioner has paid. Respondent No.4-University was the contesting party and no one had appeared for the said University. Earlier Mr.T.P.S.Chawla

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.11249 of 2005 :2:

¶22

Advocate had been appearing for the respondent-University and accordingly notice was issued to him for 28.5.2012. The case was again adjourned to 9.7.2012 and thereafter to 13.8.2012. On that day, Mr.Amrit Paul had appeared on behalf of respondent No.4University and had prayed for time to have instructions in this regard. The case was adjourned on 25.9.2012 on written request made by the counsel for the respondent-University. Today, counsel appearing for the University informs the Court that the petitioner never pursued his course for which he had sought admission in M.Tech. Course of Computer. Once he was denied admission in M.Tech Computer, he had appeared for B.Tech Electronics course for four years and has completed the same in the year 2009. The petitioner is not holding any higher qualification of this University or of any other course from other University which he may have completed. Accordingly, the issue which was considered to be left for deciding would not arise in the facts of this case.

¶23

At this stage, Mr.Y.P.Bhagirath appearing for the petitioner submits that the arguing counsel for the petitioner is in personal difficulty and as such requests for adjournment. On that count, I am not inclined to adjourn the case as no written request for adjournment is made, for which every day a note is given in the list. However, in view of the facts noticed above, nothing is left for consideration in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. If the petitioner is still left with any grievance, he may move an application for revival of the same and it can then be considered.

¶24

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶25

October 10, 2012 ramesh

Amar Fateh Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Fateh Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Satish Kumar Vs Appeelate Auth.Cum.Addl.D.Judge & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deepika Chuchra Vs State of Punjab etc. (Dismissed on 8.10.12)

Jevan Kumar Raut Vs CBI

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Anupama College of Engineering Vs All India Council for Technical Education