Rinky Roy v. The Director
HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI Lok Adalat-I organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Wednesday, the 15th day of April 2015 LOK ADALAT AWARD (Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) Presided over by The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM (Retd.) and Members Mr.G.Maragatham Ms.Ayesha Fathima W.P.No.7442 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012 (This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent culminating into the order dated 01.03.2012 made in proceedings No.1400(10)/Head (AA)/26th AAC/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct the course for the fifth and other further semesters for B.Des (Design) Accessory Design - Footwear and Leather Goods and pass such further or other orders) Rinky Roy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 113.
2.Controller of Examination, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Taramani, Chennai - 113.
3.Academic Affairs Department, National Institute of Fashion Technology, NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Near Gulmohoar Park, New Delhi - 110 016.
... Respondents
This case came up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu and B.Narasimhan, party-in-person for second respondent are present. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT The petitioner, who wrote a semester, after permitting re- examination, claiming further chance to write the examination filed the writ seeking appropriate direction. After filing the writ, as represented by the second respondent, they themselves have given an opportunity to the petitioner, to re-write the semester, in which, she got through and subsequent semester also, she was successful followed by issue of a decree. It is also represented, she is employed elsewhere.
2. This being position, after going through records concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner also, understood, keeping the writ petition is unnecessary and it become infrucutous. Hence, as per the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not challenged, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Judge Sd/- Sd/- Member Member Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Lok Adalat) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To:The parties/Advocate concerned Copy to:
1. The Director, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai - 113.
2. Controller of Examination, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chennai, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Taramani, Chennai - 113.
3. Academic Affairs Department, National Institute of Fashion Technology, NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Near Gulmohoar Park, New Delhi - 110 016.
4. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.
5. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
6. The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.
+2 copies W.P.No.7442 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012 CNR(CO) CA(08/05/2015)