Bombay High CourtWP/9587/2015rejected at admission stage

Hanumant Raghunath Gutte v. The Registrar Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Aurangabad And Others

2015-10-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.S. Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.M. Badar2 pages

9587.2015 WP.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9587 OF 2015 ...

HANUMANT RAGHUNATH GUTTE

VERSUS

THE REGISTRAR BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY AURANGABAD AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar AGP for Respondent: Mr. S.D.Kaldate Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate holding Mr. S.S.Thombre ...

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

Dated: October 21, 2015 ...

PER COURT:

1] This Writ Petition is filed with following prayer clauses B and C:

B] By an Order of this Hon'ble High Court and or appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of writ, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to occupy the hostel premises / room until completion of his M.Phil education with respondent No.1 University.

C] By an Order of this Hon'ble High Court and or appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of writ, the respondent No.1 be directed

9587.2015 WP.odt to take appropriate action against respondent No.3 for illegally locking down the room so occupied by the petitioner without following due process of law and in furtherance of representation dated 10.09.2015 so addressed to the respondent No.1 (Exhibit "H").

2] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. With his able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein, and annexure thereto. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not able to point out any document, which would show that, the petitioner was given admission in the hostel for the academic Year 2014-15. Therefore, the respondent - University is right in contending that, the petitioner, after completion of the academic year 2013-2014, has unauthorizedly occupied the Room No.2, which was allotted to him for the academic year 2013-2014, even in the next academic year.

3] In that view of the matter, the Petition is misconceived. No relief can be granted. The conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him from seeking any relief from the writ court. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [A.M. BADAR, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] DDC