Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Arvind Kumar And Others v. Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad And Others - WRIT - C No. 13777 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11580 (17 July 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).


Court No.7

Civil Misc. Application No. 137772 of 2006


                             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36463 of 2006

Brijbasi Education & Welfare Society,20-A, Govind Nagar, Mathura and

another.                                                                                   Petitioners


The Chancellor, U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and others.



Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.7.2006. An urgent application has been moved by the petitioner that though one week's time was granted for transmitting the papers but due to typographical errors/omissions, which have not been incorporated in the judgment, the Vice Chancellor has not taken any decision for transmitting the papers to the Chancellor as yet.

            Sri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate appearing for respondent-U.P. Technical University, Lucknow submits that though a week's time was granted to the Vice Chancellor for transmitting the papers to the Chancellor but as he is out of station and as it was not incorporated in the judgment, the judgment may also be accordingly corrected. He also submits that on receipt of the application today he has telephonically informed the Vice Chancellor about the time limit but as he is out of station today he has assured that the order would be complied with by 20.7.2006.

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed by Sri Manu Khare, counsel for the petitioner appending therewith a list of 216 colleges which are allotted to the students after the counselling is over.

It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that institutes mentioned in the list at sl. Nos. 15,70,79,132,152,154, 184,202 and 206 appended with the supplementary affidavit are some of the colleges which have been allotted to the students after the counselling, though they are not affiliated to University as such the petitioner greatly prejudiced by the action or non-action of the respondents.

In paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that institutes at sl. No. 15 Accurate Institute of Management and Technology Greater NOIDA, sl. No. 79 ITS Engineering College, Greater NOIDA,  sl. No. 154 R.D. Engineering College, Ghaziabad, sl. No. 132 Lord Krishna College of Engineering Ghaziabad, sl. No. 152 Pt. Sujan Singh Degree College and sl. No. 184 Sri Ganpati Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad are some of the Institutes figuring in the aforesaid list  the students have been allotted though they are not affiliated to any  University. The petitioner has claimed parity with aforesaid colleges and submits that the students ought to have been allotted to the petitioner institute also but the name of the petitioner institute for the reasons best known to respondents has not been included in the said list.

Sri Neeraj Tiwari, counsel appearing for the respondent-U.P. Technical University, Lucknow submits that the counselling is already over and it has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that without any affiliation the students can not be allotted the institute and in any case vide order dated 13th July, 2006 this Court has already directed the Vice Chancellor for transmitting the papers to the Chancellor for affiliation/passing appropriate orders.

Having heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the Vice Chancellor has already been directed to transmit the papers of the petitioner institute for affiliation to the Chancellor within a week i.e. up to 20th July, 2006, in view of the order dated 13th July, 2006 since the petitioner institute does not appear to be affiliated till date, hence in view of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court direction can not be issued for allotment of the students to petitioner institution, even though some institutions might have wrongly been included in the aforesaid list and also for the reason that first round of counselling is already over, in the circumstances, the Chancellor shall take decision within a period of two weeks as directed in the aforesaid order before second round of  counselling takes place whichever is earlier. The Chancellor will also consider the grievance of the petitioner as to whether the institutes which are not affiliated have been allotted the students in the first counselling and if that be so, he shall pass appropriate orders for adding the name of the petitioner institute in the list in future.

With the above observations, the application is disposed of accordingly.

Dated 17.7.2006





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


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 |

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