Jan Adhikar Chhtra Parishad v. Patna University And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19747 of 2016 =========================================================== Jan Adhikar Chhtra Parishad, through its State President namely Gautam Anand, S/o Shri Surendra Kumar, Resident of Jan Adhikar Party, Jyoti Priyam Apartment, Jagdeo Path, P.S.- Airport, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Patna University, Patna through its Registrar.

2. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna.

3. The Controller of Examination, Patna University, Patna.

4. The Director, Master in Journalism & Mass Communication, Department of Hindi, Patna University, Patna.

5. The Co-ordinator, Post Graduate Diploma in Mass Communication/Master in Journalism & Mass Communication, Department of Hindi, Patna University, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate Mr. B. J. Jha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 16-05-2017 None appears for the petitioner. Sri Digvijay Singh appears for the University. None had appeared for the petitioner on the last date also.

On going through the material available on record, we find that the petitioner wants a direction to conduct special examination for the students who, according to the petitioner, have been illegally deprived from appearing in the examination for a course in Master in Journalism and Mass Communication held in the year 2016. Apart from

Patna High Court CWJC No.19747 of 2016 dt.16-05-2017 2/2 the fact that the aggrieved persons, who were prevented from appearing in the examination, are not before us, we find that the candidates were prevented from appearing in the examination because they did not fulfill the condition having 75% attendance for the course in question. Taking note of all these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter in a public interest petition of the nature filed. The aggrieved persons should ventilate their grievance personally by giving details of the various factors which are relevant for deciding the issue in question. In a public interest petition based on vague allegation, a roving enquiry cannot be directed and relief granted. Accordingly, finding the public interest petition to be not maintainable for the reasons indicated hereinabove; we dismiss the same granting liberty to the aggrieved persons to ventilate their grievance individually, if advisable.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.05.2017 Transmission Date