REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVA NAGAR Vs. ARUNDHATI COLLEGE OF LAW THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SRI. RAJENDRAKUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the University, questioning the order dated 29.02.2012 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 84518 -519/2011 (Edn). The records reveal that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had filed the aforementioned writ petitions seeking quashing of the order dated 30.07.2011, discontinuing affiliation of the respondent -college to run the first year L.L.B. course for the academic year 2011 -12. The said writ petitions were disposed of on merits. However, while disposing of the writ petitions, the following observations were made: 7. Though this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to petitioners 1 and 2 as they do not deserve, in the facts and circumstances of the case the fate of innocent 24 students can not be compromised for the mistake of petitioners 1 and 2. In that view of matter, though this Court is not inclined to, in compassion towards the students, it is necessary to direct 3rd respondent university to hold examination for 24 students of 1st petitioner college within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order and to announce the result of same only with an intention to see that the students should not suffer for no fault of." them. Accordingly, IA.II/2012 is allowed. Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of. While doing so, IA.I/2012 is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration. 8. While disposing of these writ petitions with aforesaid observations this Court like to place on record that the respondents should initiate appropriate proceedings against Principal of 1st petitioner law college and the members of managing committee of 2nd petitioner for willfully disobeying the instructions given by university and in the process putting 24 students of 1st petitioner college to untold misery and mental agony and also putting their one academic year in jeopardy. Third respondent University is also directed to initiate appropriate proceedings for punishing them for disobedience of the terms and conditions at Annexures -G and J and proceeding with admission for academic year 2011 -2012 contrary to the communication issued to them. With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of.

(2.) FROM the aforementioned observations it is clear that the appellant -University was directed to conduct examination for 24 students of 1st respondent college within 45 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Such lenient view was taken by learned Single Judge only with an intention to see that the students should not suffer for no fault of them. As could be seen from Annexure -H dated 14.06.2011 (produced along with this wit appeal), only four colleges were directed not to admit first year law students. Respondent No. 1 herein was not one among those four colleges. Therefore, respondent No. 1 must have admitted 24 students to first year law course. However, subsequently the affiliation of respondent No. 1 was cancelled. Because of subsequent cancellation of affiliation, the students should not suffer. Under such circumstances, learned Single Judge is justified in taking lenient view keeping in mind the interest of the students. These appeals are filed for setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to conduct examinations.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is brought to the notice of the Court that though learned Single Judge has directed the University to conduct examination for 24 students as back as on 29.02.2012, the University did not conduct examination. It is further relevant to note that the learned Single Judge has directed that examination should be conducted within 45 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order and announce the result. This direction was issued only with an intention to see that the students should not suffer for no fault of them. Inspite of the same, unfortunately, the University has not conducted the examination. We would have taken action against the concerned officials of the University under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.