Mohd. Sajid v. Union Of India And ORS

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1162/2013 MOHD. SAJID ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.R.K. Saini with Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.T.P. Singh, Adv. for R1/UOI.

Mr.Apoorv Kurup with Mr.Girijapati Kaushal & Ms.Isha Mittal, Adv. for R-2.

Mr.Sanjay Sharawat with Mr.Divyank Rana, Advs. for R-4.

Mr.G.Tushar Rao, Adv. for R-5.

Mr.Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC with Mr.Devesh Dubey, Adv. for R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 12.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioners who were the students of respondent No.5-Institute, which was allegedly affiliated to respondent No.4-Univeristy, have approached this Court for a direction to respondent No.2 to cancel the status deemed university conferred on of respondent No.4 and also for directing respondent

No.5 to shut down the Institute, which according to the petitioners, was running in violation of the UGC guidelines whereby there was a specific prohibition for opening off-campus centres by the University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State. The record shows that after filing of the writ petition, respondent No.4-university has taken a categoric stand, which is again reiterated by them learned counsel Mr.Sanjay Sharawat in Court today, that in view of the UGC guidelines, for the present, respondent No.4 will not open or permit opening of any study centre outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. He however, submits that in case, UGC guidelines are altered at any stage, the University would then take appropriate action in accordance with law. Mr.Rao, who appears for respondent No.

5 also submits that in view of the UGC guidelines, respondent No.5-Institute is no longer admitting any student in diploma or degree courses. He also reiterates the same request as made by Mr.Sharawat that in case UGC guidelines are altered in any manner in the future, the Institute would then take an appropriate action as per the guidelines by following the due procedure of law.

Mr.Apoorv Kurup, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that even before the issuance of the aforesaid guidelines, the UGC had been writing the letters to various Universities and State Governments not to open study centres beyond their territorial jurisdiction.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by respondent Nos.4 and 5, learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the

present petition any further.

The petition is accordingly disposed of as not pressed binding respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 to the statements made on their behalf.

REKHA PALLI, J APRIL 12, 2018 gm