Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1077 (KAR)

ENNAMRURI SUBHARAO v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

2003-12-18

body2003
( 1 ) THE Petitioners in these petitions have sought for a declaration, to declare that, the petitioners are entitled to College in the absence of any order under Rule 130) of the Bar Council of India Rules which has been set aside pursue their course of study in the third respondent by this Court on 2nd September 2003 in W. P. No. 26081/2003 vide Annexure E. Further, they have sought for a direction, to direct the second respondent University to permit the petitioners appearance in the Examinations conducted at the end of the academic term and pursue their course of study without reference to, or giving effect to the communication dated 17th April 2003 vide Annexure D. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as hereunder: the petitioners herein are all students alleged to have been admitted to first year of 3 years LL. B. course for the academic year 2003-2004 in the third respondent - College. The petitioners are alleged to have undergone the necessary course of study and are required to and are eligible to appear for the examination that is conducted by the Affiliating University, the second respondent herein at the end of the first Semester. The case of the petitioners is that, they have been erroneously denied admission to the examination, purportedly on the ground that, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has communicated the decision of non continuation of Affiliation in accordance with clause 13 (j) of the BCI Rules, by its communication dated 17th April 2003 and therefore, the admission of the petitioners for the academic year 2003-2004 is illegal and impermissible, and consequence cannot be approved and permitted to appear for the examinations. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE third respondent-College filed Writ Petition No. 52643/2003 questioning the arbitrary and illegal action of the University in denying the benefit of examination to its students. When things stood thus, the petitioners being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of the University have presented these writ petitions for redressal of their grievances by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. When things stood thus, the petitioners being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of the University have presented these writ petitions for redressal of their grievances by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) THE further case of the petitioners is that, the fact that the petitioners herein are alleged to have been admitted for the academic year 2003-2004 is evidenced by the list of admission with all particulars submitted to the second respondent - University for its approval. The third respondent - College on being satisfied with the completion of the course study of the first semester, has submitted the candidates list, and has paid the examination fees, under receipt dated 20th November 2003. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the third respondent - College is affiliated to the second respondent - University and its affiliation is renewed periodically I on being satisfied of the compliance of the requirement of the regulations framed thereunder. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioners have relied upon the recommendation made by the Local Inspection Committee (for short LIC) for the academic year 2003-2004 in respect of the third respondent College produced vide Annexure B and it is the practice of the University to grant a formal letter of continuation of affiliation for a particular year after inspection by its LIC, after receipt to the compliance report by the College and explaining the compliance of certain deficiencies pointed out, the College has submitted a compliance report and the formal order of continuation of affiliation by the University is awaited. After coming into force of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the BCI Rules) made under Section 7 (h) and (i), 24 (1) 49 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law or admission as advocates has been framed, and under Appendix H thereof, dealing with practical training under Section (b)1 recognition of the degree in law is provided. Among others, by clause 12, it Is provided that, no College started after coming into force of these rules, shall Impart instruction in course of study in law, unless its affiliation i. e. , approved by the BCI. Among others, by clause 12, it Is provided that, no College started after coming into force of these rules, shall Impart instruction in course of study in law, unless its affiliation i. e. , approved by the BCI. By Clause 13, it is proved that, the BCI shall cause a law College affiliated or sought to be affiliated to a University to be inspected by a Committee appointed by it for the purpose. Under the said provisions, it also has suo-motu powers to inspect and under the procedure prescribed among others, on inspection if the Committee of Inspection, makes an unfavourable report, it would be sent to the University for its comments and explanations, if any, which is required to be placed before the BCI, which In turn, is required to be placed before the Legal Education Committee, which authority on reconsideration can make a fresh recommendation and ultimately, it is for the BCI to take a decision of continuation of affiliation or otherwise, which is required to be communicated to the Registrar of University, under sub Clause (j) of Clause 13. It is necessary to point out that under Sub - clause (I) of clause 13, it is contemplated to provide an opportunity of being heard. It is also necessary to point out that, it is provided under clause 13 that, any decision of approval or disapproval of grant of affiliation shall be effective from the commencement of the next academic year following the date on which it is received by the Registrar of University. ( 5 ) THE further case of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, the College and the Management assailing the communication dated 17th April 2003 issued by the first respondent herein had filed writ Petition No. 26081/2003 and the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 2nd September 2003. After hearing, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing that, the impugned communication therein may be treated as show cause notice and permitted the third respondent - College herein to file objections and directed the first respondent - BCI to reconsider the matter. After hearing, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing that, the impugned communication therein may be treated as show cause notice and permitted the third respondent - College herein to file objections and directed the first respondent - BCI to reconsider the matter. The petitioners case is that, when the said communication has not been given effect to, there was no impediment for the University for rejecting the Examination fee in view of the legal position in terms of the BCI Rules and the order of this Court dated 2nd September 2003 entitling the petitioners continuation of study and to the privilege of the University, the second respondent has denied the same without any justification. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of the course of study is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust It is the further case of the petitioners that, when this Court, has declared the communication under clause 13 (j) as inoperative and has issued a direction, to treat the same 88 show cause notice, and there being no order operating in terms of clause 13 (j) thereunder providing to be effective from the year following the said academic year, it is impermissible for the University to treat the petitioners College as an unrecognized Institution. Hence, the action of the University is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. Under these circumstances, the petitioners were constrained to Invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as they have no other alternative, effective, and efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievances. ( 6 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the action of the second respondent in seeking to deny the petitioners the benefit of their study and appearance in the University Examination is illegal arbitrary and unjust. Once the order of the BCI communicated under clause 13 (j) of the Rules has been set aside, directing it to be treated as show cause notice, and there being no orders operating against it, it is unjust on the part of the second respondent to treat the third respondent as an unrecognized Institution. Once the order of the BCI communicated under clause 13 (j) of the Rules has been set aside, directing it to be treated as show cause notice, and there being no orders operating against it, it is unjust on the part of the second respondent to treat the third respondent as an unrecognized Institution. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the second respondent failed to appreciate that, the students admissions were protected by an interim order passed by this Court and ultimately the decision of the BCI not to continue affiliation itself has been set aside by this Court and the BCI has been directed to consider afresh the question of continuation of affiliation treating the impugned communication as show cause notice in the earlier round of litigation. He further submitted that, the second respondent further has failed to appreciate and notice that, a representation has been given to the first respondent by the third respondent - College pursuant to the order passed by this Court and the BCI has taken a decision in the matter. Further, the second respondent also failed to appreciate that, the LIC of the University had recommended continuation of affiliation to the third respondent - College for the academic year 2003-2004 and there was no reason to deny them of the privilege of affiliation to the third respondent - College. He submitted that, for no fault of the petitioners, great hardship and inconvenience has been caused to the petitioners and their right to education and right to equal treatment have been infringed. Therefore, this Court issued appropriate direction, directing the second respondent. University to permit the petitioners to appear for the remaining two examinations which had already commenced for the third year LLB semesters course conducted by the second respondent - University. ( 7 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- University, inter alia, contended and justified the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to appear for the Examination which already commenced from 15th December 2003 on the ground that, the BCI, after inspecting the College, has found several deficiencies and submitted its report with its recommendations and the said recommendations were placed before the LIC at its meeting held on 4/5th of April 2003 which accepted the recommendations of the Committee and declined to extend the affiliation granted to the third respondent-College. Furhter, he vehemently submitted that, the second respondent-University has specifically directed the third respondent-College not to admit anyu students for the academic year 2003-2004. The BCI, after approving the recommendations of the Committee in its meeting held on 5th/6th April 2003 by its communication dated 17th April 2003 has informed its decision to the second respondent-University with a copy to te third respondent-College. In pursuance ofthe impugned communication issued by the first respondent - BCI, the second respondent - University, immediately communicated the decision taken by the first respondent to the college, by its order dated 10th May 2003, and directed the College not to make any admission of students for five year LL. B course and the three year LL. B. course for the academic year 2003-2004 on the ground that, the BGI, after consideration of the opinion and the recommendations of the Committee and the inspection report has declined the continuation of approval of affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004 and inspite of the specific directions issued by both the authorities, if the third respondent makes any admissions for the academic year 2003-2004 it alone would be responsible. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that, when there is no extension of affiliation by the University and there is clear non-approval of affiliation by the first respondent - BCI for the academic year 2003-2004, and a clear intimation made to the effect that, the third respondent should not make any admissions and if any made, it alone would be responsible, the question of permitting the petitioners to appear for the Examination commencing from 15th December 2003 does not arise. Therefore, the action of the second respondent is perfectly in accordance with the mandate of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 and in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance about the same at this belated stage. Nor they are entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petitions. ( 8 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that, the BCI, after reconsideration of the matter in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, has again, declined to extend the approval of affiliation to the third respondent - College for the year 2003-2004 and the same was duly communicated to the third respondent by its communication dated 6th December 2003 vide Annexure R. 3 produced along with statement of objections. In view of the latest communication dated 6th December 2003, and also non approval of the admission of the petitioners, the contention raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions that, the petitioners are entitled to continue their studies in the absence of any order by the first respondent under Rule 13 (j) does not hold any water and it is liable to be rejected. ( 9 ) I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondents for considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the entire materiel available on record with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and after taking in to consideration the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the second respondent - University in not approving the admission, of the petitioners and not permitting the students to appear for the Examination which has already commenced. It is not in dispute as on date that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has granted continuation of affiliation to the third respondent College for the academic year 2003-2004. When once the continuation of affiliation is not granted by both the authorities, the question of consideration of giving benefit to the petitioners for their appearance in the Examination does not arise and the same will be contrary to the statutory provisions of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 and the BCI Rules. It is significant to note that, under Section 59 (13) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000, it is stated as follows: section 59 (13): Sanction of affiliation however, be subject to obtaining the prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education, the Bar Council of India, the National Council for Teachers Education, or such other authorities or bodies concerned and the in take determined shall not exceed the in take if any specified by such authorities or bodies. Sub-Section (13) of Section 59 of the Act contemplates obtaining of prior approval from the BCI. Sub-Section (13) of Section 59 of the Act contemplates obtaining of prior approval from the BCI. Sub - Section (17) of Section 59 of the Act deals with renewal of affiliation which reads as hereunder: section 59 (17): Renewal of affiliation or continuation of affiliation for each academic year for the existing courses of study and extension of affiliation for follow on courses, excluding new courses, may be granted by the Syndicate in consultation with the Academic Council in the same manner as applicable for grant of fresh affiliation. In the instant case, in pursuance of the decision taken by the first respondent BCI, the second respondent vide letter dated 10th May 2003 in No. Aca- III A2:renaffin:ipc; Law :2002-03, has specifically directed the third respondent - College not make any admissions for the five year LLB course and three year LLB course for the academic year 2003-2004 under any circumstances, and if any admissions are made by violating the directions of the BCI and the University, the College alone would be held responsible. In spite of the specific direction issued by the second respondent University, not to make any admissions for the year 2003-2004, the third respondent. College has taken its risk and admitted the students without there being any extension of affiliation by the competent authority as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Universities Act and the BCI Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not approving the admissions of these petitioners and not permitting the petitioners to appear for the Examinations which has already commenced from 15th December 2003, is in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, as stated supra. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and there is a total prohibition for the appearance of the petitioners for the Examinations that has already commenced from 15th December 2003 as per Section 61 of the Act Section 61 of the Act reads are hereunder: section 61: Restriction for appearance in the Examinations: A student whose admission has become invalid or whose admission has not been approved by the University or who has been admitted to a College or course of study in excess of the prescribed intake shall not be eligible to appear for the examination conducted by either the College or the University. When there is total restriction for appearance in the Examinations as envisaged under Section 61 of the Universities Act, the question of approval of admissions and granting permission to the petitioners herein to appear for the Examinations that has already commenced, that too at the middle of the Examinations does not arise at elf and the same is not justifiable nor it is the duty of the Courts to re-write the statute and issue the direction, taking into consideration the sympathy factor. The same is impermissible in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of A. P. CHRISTIANS MEDICIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( 1986 (2) SCC 667 ) wherein it is held thus: we cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws further, the Honble supreme Court of India, in the case of ST. JOHNS TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE (FOR WOMEN)) MADURAI ETC. ETC. vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. (1994 SUPREME COURT 43), wherein the appellants therein had sought for a direction to allow the students of unrecognized institution to appear at examinations pending disposal of writ petitions, has observed that, the Courts should not issue such fiats - such interim orders affect the careers of students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities. Interim Orders, permitting the students of unrecognized institutions to appear at exam - should not be passed. Further, it is held as follows;"it is a matter of common knowledge that, as a part of strategy, such writ applications for directions to recognise the institutions in question and in the mean time to allow the students to appear at the examinations are filed only when the dates for examinations are notified. Many of such institutions are not only masked phantoms but are established as business ventures for admitting sub-standard students, without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the minority. Many of such institutions are not only masked phantoms but are established as business ventures for admitting sub-standard students, without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the minority. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main writ applications have been filed only when the dates for the Examination have been announced. In this process, students, without knowing the design of the organizers of such institutions, become victim of their manipulations, therefore, in view of the relevant provisions of the Act and the BCI Rules. I do not find any unreasonableness on the part of the second respondent in not approving the admission and not granting permission to the petitioners to appear for the Examination that has already commenced. " ( 10 ) THE further contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, when the Local Inspection Committee (LIC) has recommended continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2003-2004, there was no reason for the respondents 1 and 2 to deny the third respondent - College of the privilege of affiliation and approval of admissions and not permitting the petitioners to appear for the Examination that has already commenced. In my considered view, the said contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has no basis to stand. The LIC of the University is only a fact finding Committee, to place its report before the competent authority for renewal of affiliation, continuation of affiliation for each academic year for the existing course of study and extension of affiliation is granted in consultation with the academic council in the same manner as applicable for grant of fresh affiliation as envisaged under Section 59 of the Act. ( 11 ) FURTHER, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that, the communication issued to the third respondent - College dated 17th April 2003 directed to be treated as show cause notice, as observed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 26081/2003 by its order dated 2nd September 2003 is applicable only for the subsequent next academic year, namely 2004-2005 and not for the current academic year 2003-2004 and hence, there was no impediment for the second respondent to treat the third respondent - College as an unrecognized Institution and the action taken by it is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Rules. The said submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted for more than one reason. This Court has directed the impugned communication to be treated as show cause notice and the third respondent - College was permitted to file its objections to the same and further the first respondent herein was directed to consider end pass appropriate orders. It is significant to note here itself that, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent has reconsidered the matter after taking in to consideration the objections filed by the third respondent College and after going through the en tire infrastructure mentioned in their objections and finally rejected the request of the third respondent by its communication dated 6th December 2003 communicating to the Registrar of the University and also the College that, the BCI after complying with the on r passed by this Court on 2nd September 2003 in W. P. No. 26081/2003 filed by the third respondent, treating the Inspection Report as show cause notice and after considering the objections filed by the third respondent - College has declined to extend the approval of affiliation to the said College for the following reasons:-1. Bangalore University not granted affiliation for the period 2003-2004. 2. The management wants to run both three year and five year course but infrastructural facilities are very poor. Only three rooms are available in the 25 1st C Main Road, Ganga Nagar Extension, R. T. Nagar Building. only three rooms are available in the building out of which two rooms are very small. 3. The management failed to appoint sufficient number of full time and part time lecturers. Only three rooms are available in the 25 1st C Main Road, Ganga Nagar Extension, R. T. Nagar Building. only three rooms are available in the building out of which two rooms are very small. 3. The management failed to appoint sufficient number of full time and part time lecturers. In reply, the management mentioned only four persons are working in the college. The management not submitted the list of part time lecturers. 4. The management not appointed a Librarian to Law Library. 5. List of books available in the library also not submitted. 6. The management not invested any amount to develop the Library. 7. The management not deposited any amount for construction of new building. 8. Failed to comply the other norms of the Bar Council of India in respect of standards of legal education laid down by it. ( 12 ) IN view of the decision taken by the first respondent and its communication on 6th December 2003 to the second respondent - University and third respondent - College, it is manifest on the face of records that, the third respondent - College has not fulfilled the requirements of continuation of affiliation nor possess the necessary infrastructure as pointed out by the first respondent in its communication dated 6th December 2003, produced as Annexure R3 to the statement of objections tiled by the second respondent. It is relevant to note here itself that, the earlier communication dated 17th April 20031 rejecting the continuation of affiliation and directing the third respondent College not to admit any students, is restored and in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent has, after taking into consideration the objections filed by the College, declined to extend the approval of affiliation to the third respondent - College. Therefore, the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the communication dated 6th December 2003 issued by the first respondent is only prospective in nature and pertains to the academic year 2004-2005 and does not pertain to the current academia year 2003-2004, cannot be accepted and the same is contrary to the material on record and the relevant provisions of the Act and the BCI Rules. The deficiencies pointed out by the first respondent, namely, 1 to 8 extracted above, are quite serious in nature. The deficiencies pointed out by the first respondent, namely, 1 to 8 extracted above, are quite serious in nature. The College has failed to possess the basic infrastructure facilities which are very much essential for running the College. Therefore, by no stretch I the request of the petitioners can be considered nor they are entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) ONE of the specific grounds urged by the petitioners is that, the second respondent has failed to appreciate that the students admission was protected by an interim order passed by this Court in writ Petition NO. 26081/2003. In the said writ petition, it is significant to note that, this Court by its order dated 30m May 2003 has issued emergent notice to the respondent and granted interim stay of Annexure E therein for a period of eight weeks and the same was continued subsequently. The communication dated 17th April 2003 vide Annexure E in the said writ petition which was stayed, is only a communication issued to the third, respondent College stating that the in view of the deficiencies mentioned in the inspection report, further extension of approval of affiliation to Indira Priyadarshini College of Law, Bangalore be declined and college authorities are directed not to admit any student form the academic year 2003-2004. It is relevant to note that, only the communication dated 17th April 2003 therein has been stayed, but there is no permission as such granted by this Court permitting the College authorities to admit the students for the academic year 2003-2004. Therefore, the said specific ground raised at Ground No. 9 by the petitioners that, the students admission were protected by an interim granted by this Court, is contrary to the material on record and the same is a misconceived one. As a matter of fact, to verify the veracity of the said ground taken by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions, this Court directed the office to put up the original records of Writ Section No. 26081/2003 disposed of on 2nd September 2003 filed by the third respondent College and the Management. As a matter of fact, to verify the veracity of the said ground taken by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions, this Court directed the office to put up the original records of Writ Section No. 26081/2003 disposed of on 2nd September 2003 filed by the third respondent College and the Management. After seeing the order sheet maintained, it is seen that, there is no permission as such granted by this Court to the third respondent College, permitting the College to admit the students for the academic year 2003-2004. Therefore, the specific ground urged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is liable to be rejected. As a matter of fact, this Court has never protected the admissions of the petitioners, as contended by the petitioners in the instant writ petitions. ( 14 ) THE Apex Court in the case of C. B. S. E. Vs. P. Sunil Kumar 1998 (5) see 377 has held thus: but to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law end this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students further, the Apex Court in the case of GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY V. PARMIDER KAUR BANSAL (1993) 4 SCC 401 , which was relied upon in the case of CBSE VS. P. SUNIL KUMAR (1985) 5 SCC 377 has observed as hereunder: we are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, moreguided by sympathy can often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone, From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutorya nd exclusive judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. this is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious Impasse in academia life. Admission cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the in terlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. Admission cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the in terlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. ( 15 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Apex Court, and having regard to the statutory provisions of the BCI Rules and the Karnataka Universities Act and the existing Regulations, as stated supra, I find that, the factual situation of the case in hand is even worse when compared to the decisions referred to above. In my considered view, condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements while considering the sympathy factor does not solve the problem and would rather bridge more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the very discipline of the academic curriculum and ultimately adversely affects the academic standard and this Court is reluctant to interfere in the academic matter, having regard to the ratio of well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in series of matters. In the academic matters, the Courts should be reluctant and slow in interfering with the domain of the academic-authority. ( 16 ) YET another reason as to why the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed is, on the ground that, the third respondent - College had filed Writ Petition No. 52643/2003 seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent therein - University to admit the First year 3 year LL. B. course and First Year 5 year LL. B. course students of the first petitioner - Society therein to the third respondent - College for the Examination which commenced from 15th December 2003. B. course and First Year 5 year LL. B. course students of the first petitioner - Society therein to the third respondent - College for the Examination which commenced from 15th December 2003. In the said writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed a memo dated 18th December 2003, stating that, the said writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to them to file a comprehensive writ petition, challenging the communication issued by the first respondent dated 6th December 2003 and accordingly, the said writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to assail the communication issued by the first respondent dated 6th December 2003 in a separate writ petition. Once the writ petition filed by the Management and the College of the third respondent is withdrawn, the petitioners herein are not entitled to seek for any relief in the instant writ petitions, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, end taking into consideration and factual and legal aspect of the matter, a enumerated above, I do not find any justification to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to consider the request. Hence, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. --- *** --- .