Vijay Narayan Deshmukh v. Shivaji University, Kolhapur

3-wp-7878-2015.doc Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7878 OF 2015 Vijay Narayan Deshmukh ] Petitioner

Versus

Shivaji University, Kolhapur ] Respondent .....

Mr. Vijay Narayan Deshmukh, Petitioner in person. ....

CORAM:

R.K. DESHPANDE & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.

DATE: 11th MARCH, 2020.

P.C:

Office report dated 16teth February, 2017 is reproduced below.

"Mr. Vijay N. Deshmukh, ApplicantPetitioner, has applied for permission to argue the matter in person in Bombay High Court.

In view of the provisions of Chapter IV-A (ii) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, he was called for interaction. He appeared before the Committee. The Committee has done interaction with the Applicant and the Committee found that the Applicant was unable to understand the question of law asked to him pertaining to his own case. Apart from that fact the Applicant is not fully conversant with English language but also has insufficient knowledge of law.

1/2

3-wp-7878-2015.doc On perusal of the pleadings and after interaction with the applicant, the Committee is of the opinion that the Applicant would not be able to provide appropriate assistance, as contemplated by the Rules, to the Hon'ble Court for disposal of case". 2.

We tried to ascertain from the petitioner appearing in person, his grievance. We asked him to address the Court in Marathi language. We have heard him in Marathi. We can gather that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in three to four subjects in L.L.B third year in L.L.B fve years course. He was granted ATKT as he was unsuccessful in two subjects in second year course. The grievance is that this has been deliberately done by the respondent/University. It is only the respondentShivaji University, Kolhapur which is party to this Petition. The petitioner was taking his education in Ismail Mulla Law College, Satara which is not party respondent to the present Writ Petition. The claim is that there is breach of contract by not giving the petitioner appropriate marks in the examinations. We fail to understand this challenge. The writ petition is dismissed. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] [R. K. DESHPANDE, J.] 2/2