Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GRAMEEN VIKAS SAMIITI RANDEVI(NAKUR) SAHARANPUR & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Grameen Vikas Samiiti Randevi(Nakur) Saharanpur & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 5842 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6244 (22 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The petitioners' educational institution was granted recognition by the N.C.T.E. It was also granted temporary affiliation by the Chancellor for the year 2004-05. For the current year 2005-06, the extension of temporary affiliation has been refused by the Chancellor by the order dated 5.12.2005, Annexure 7 to this writ petition. The Chancellor's order contains six objections.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor, Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anurag Khanna for the University.

The petitioners have given a very detailed reply to each of the objections of the Chancellor in the various paragraphs of this writ petition. These explanations require appropriate consideration by the Chancellor.

Apparently, these explanations could not be furnished before the Chancellor and, accordingly, could not be considered by the Chancellor because the Chancellor's office failed to communicate these objections, specifically by a notice  to the petitioner seeking the petitioners' explanation or appropriate action by the petitioners removing the defects and intimation of the same to the Chancellor.

We have already held in other cases that it does not appear to be appropriate on the part of the Chancellor to reject continuation of an existing affiliation straightway without pointing out the objections to the managers of the institution and giving them an opportunity to either remove the defects or to give their explanation with regard to the objections.

In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 5.12.2005 requiring the Chancellor to re-examine the matter at his earliest convenience. In the meantime, till the fresh consideration by the Chancellor, the temporary affiliation granted to the petitioners' institution will be deemed to continue, but not beyond the academic year 2005-06.

Writ petition is allowed, accordingly.

7.3.2006

VKS/ WP5842/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.