← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5751/2014dismissed

Shri. M. Murali Krishna v. Universiity Grants Commission, Thrugh Chairman And ANR

2015-03-11Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vasanti A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar3 pages

bsb 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5751 OF 2014 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 662 OF 2015 Shri M. Murali Krishna ... Petitioner v/s The University Grant Commission, through Chairman & anr.

... Respondents Mr.M. Murali Krishna - petitioner in person.

CORAM: MRS. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2015 P.C.:

Heard.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take action against the members of the Board of Management of Gokhale Institute, Pune, under the provisions of Article 22 of the University Grants Commission (Instituttions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010, as per the representation of the petitioner dated 31st July, 2013. By the representation made to the Univrsity Grants Commission (in short,

bsb 2 the U.G.C.), the petitioner has sought to set aside the existing Board of Management of the Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Deemed University, Pune.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner has made a representation to the U.G.C. and the representation of the petitioner is pending and is directed to be decided by the U.G.C. by an order in Writ Petition No.2670 of 2013, the U.G.C. has not decided the same. It is stated that, though it was necessary to have five post graduate departments, the deemed university is having only one.

We find on a perusal of the writ petition, and on hearing the petitioner who appears in person, that there are several disputes between the petitioner and the management of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. The petitioner appears to be in the habit of making complaints against the management of the Deemed University not only to the U.G.C., but to several public authorities and functionaries. It appears that a departmental enquiry is also pending against the petitioner and the same is in progress. So also, we find that, by a direction in the earlier petition, this Court had asked the U.G.C. to decide the application filed by the petitioner. If the U.G.C. has not decided the application till date, the petitioner has other remedies. It is well settled that, successive writ petitions cannot be filed for seeking the relief that already stands granted. Also, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts,

bsb 3 especially when a departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner appears to be on loggerhead with the members of the management, it would not be in the interest of justice to again direct the U.G.C. to decide the representation made by the petitioner, more so, when such a direction is already issued. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

With the dismissal of the writ petition, the civil application would not survive and the same stands disposed of. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)