Shahid Khan v. Lalit Narayan Mithila University And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.222 of 2018 ====================================================== Shahid Khan, son of Late Asfaque Khan, resident of Village+ P.O.- Tharhi Bhawanipur, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, through its Vice Chancellor.

2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

3. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

4. The Controller of Examination, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

5. The Principal, Shiv Nandan Prasad Mandal Law College, Madhepura. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrit Abhijat For the University :

Dr. Anshuman Mr. Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ application has been filed seeking direction to the respondent, particularly, the Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, to publish result of L.L.B. Part-III examination, which the petitioner claims to have given for the academic session 1985-86. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of a letter dated 12.06.2017, issued by Public Information Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, whereby the petitioner has been informed that his application for publication of result has been rejected by the Examination Council on 11.05.2017.

Patna High Court CWJC No.222 of 2018(3) dt.07-09-2018 2/2 For the sole reason that the petitioner has approached this Court more than three decades after he claims to have participated in the said examination, this writ application deserves to be dismissed.

My attention has been drawn to the impugned communication dated 12.06.2017, issued by the Public Information Officer. The communication made by the Public Information Officer could not have been put to challenge in writ jurisdiction, as the petitioner has a remedy of appeal. The reason why the information is not being supplied is also clear from the said communication itself, inasmuch as concerned documents are said to be not available with the University, after more than three decades of the examination.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed for the reasons as noted above.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ashish/- U