Priyank Rana v. Associates Of Indian Universities

$~37 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3513/2019 & CM No. 16111/2019 PRIYANK RANA ..... Petitioner Through:

Ms Mahima Rathi and Mr Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

versus ASSOCIATES OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES ..... Respondent Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 05.04.2019 1.

The petitioner claims to be an accomplished sportsperson in the field of swimming.

The petitioner claims that he had participated in 50m Butterfly Event at the All India Inter University Aquatic Championship (Men) held by the Jain Deemed to be University, Bangalore during the period 28.10.2018 to 31.10.2018. The petitioner claims that although the petitioner had secured the first position, he was ranked at the sixth position. A protest letter in this regard was submitted by the Manager, Delhi University team and video recording of the event was also submitted. However, the concerned authorities have refused to either accept the video recording submitted by the petitioner or the official video recording of the event furnished by him.

2.

The petitioner's rank at the aforesaid event is important for his selection to participate in other events. It is stated that the petitioner had

made a representation regarding the malpractices and unfair means adopted at the said event.

However, the petitioner has not received any response regarding the same.

3.

In the aforesaid context, the petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "A.

Direct the Respondent to examine and expeditiously decide the representations dated 20.12.2018 and 27.02.2019 after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard."

4.

The petitioner has also filed an interim application, inter alia, praying that he be provisionally permitted to participate in trials for 50 m Butterfly Event for the World University Championships to be conducted by Visveswaraya Technological University, Belagavi, Karnataka on 08.04.2019.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent is directed to consider his representation and he would not like to press the interim application. 6.

In view of the limited prayer sought by the petitioner, this Court does not consider it apposite to issue any notice to the respondent and await representation on its behalf.

7.

In view of the averments made in the present petition, the same is allowed and the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2018 and 27.02.2019 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six weeks from today.

8.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 05, 2019 MK