Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 326 (MP)

Quazi Bahabuddin v. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyala

2011-03-09

K.K.LAHOTI, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has sought following reliefs: " (i) To quash impugned order Annex.P/1 dated 23.09.2010 in which petitioner is at Sl.No.3. (ii) To hold that action of respondents 1,2 and 3 against petitioner is arbitrary, unjust, mala fide and against the law. (iii) That punishment given for misconduct be set aside/quashed as it is very excessive also. (iv) That, petitioner be permitted to complete his MCA and appear in examinations. (v) That, special exams be taken of petitioner as next III semester is started by respondents. (vi) That, expenses of litigation and damage not less than 25 lakhs be given to petitioner for spoiling his career and putting stigma on him. (vii) That, action be taken against respondents for illegal acts; an enquiry be conducted against respondents. (viii) Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other relief in favour of petitioner which it seems fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the case together cost of the petition." The petitioner has challenged order Annexure P/1 dated 23.9.2010 by which the petitioner's examination of MCA 2nd Semester of 2009-10 was cancelled and the petitioner was debarred for three years to appear in all the examinations conducted by the University; and also he was made ineligible to appear in any examination of the University for next three years. The return has been filed in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner's appeal (Annexure P/5) is pending before the Vice- Chancellor of the respondent-University and the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition and to press his appeal before the Vice Chancellor. Though it is stated by the respondents that this petition was attested by the Notary on 22nd October, 2010 while the appeal Annexure P/5 was filed on 23.10.2010 and filing of the aforesaid appeal itself is in doubt, but the fact is not disputed that against the order Annexure P/1, an appeal is provided to the Vice- Chancellor of the University. In view of the aforesaid, prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to press appeal (Annexure P/5) before the Vice-Chancellor of the respondents-University. On filing an application for early hearing of the aforesaid appeal (Annexure P/5), the Vice-Chancellor shall consider and decide the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid, prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to press appeal (Annexure P/5) before the Vice-Chancellor of the respondents-University. On filing an application for early hearing of the aforesaid appeal (Annexure P/5), the Vice-Chancellor shall consider and decide the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. At this stage, it is submitted by the petitioner that some more grounds are available to the petitioner for assailing the order Annexure P/1. So within a week from today, the petitioner be permitted to submit some more grounds before the Vice-Chancellor in continuation to earlier appeal Annexure P/5. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by Smt. Shobha Menon, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, but in view of the aforesaid, prayer made by the petitioner is allowed. Certified copy as per Rules.