AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 183 wordsJyoti Mulimani, J
Sri.Sandeep Vijaykumar., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sudarshan.M., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Shantabai Patil., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.D.P.Ambekar., for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent – University to consider the representation dated:15.01.2024 vide Annexure-D.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
Counsel Sri.Sudarshan.M., submits that the University may be directed to consider the representation vide Annexure-D in accordance with the law.
The oral submission made on behalf of the University is noted with care.
The Writ of Mandamus is ordered. A direction is issued to the first respondent University to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 15.01.2024 vide Annexure-D in accordance with the law, before 30.01.2024.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Needless to observe that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.