High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 12 UK CK 0001

Sneh Mehra vs Vice Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 24 December 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Brahma Singh Verma, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2181 of 2010

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 353 words

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief:

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the letter No. H.N.B. G.U./Acad/Resh/2009/1572(5) issued by Respondent No. 2.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the Petitioner''s synopsis, which is submitted before the Respondents.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the Petitioner within stipulated time with speaking order.

IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for loss of two years, which they have given in preparing her synopsis.

v. To pass any other and further orders, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

VI. Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.

3.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that she had exhausted her two precious years in completing the synopsis but the Respondents have rejected the same without assigning any reason and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

4.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the ends of justice would be served if the Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 8-11-2010 (Annexure-5 collectively to the writ petition) by a speaking order, which is still pending. Prayer is innocuous.

5.

Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 or the authority concerned of the Respondent-University is directed to decide the representation made by the Petitioner dated 8-11-2010 by a speaking order, expeditiously in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

6.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

7.

A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner today on payment of usual charges.