Madras High CourtWP/20135/2025allowed

Ethayakannan v. The Correspondent

2025-08-01Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.No.20135 of 2025 Ethayakannan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Correspondent Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai

2. The Registrar Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai 3.The Principal Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai 4.The Inspector of Police C1, Flower Bazar, Police Station, Chennai.

...Respondents

PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 28.04.2025 and

direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the college and conduct the semester exam.

For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji for Mr.S. Arumugam For Respondents ... Mr.G.Nanmaran for R4 Ms.M.Amaraa for R1 to R3 Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 28.04.2025 and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the college and conduct the semester exam.

2. The short facts to be considered is whether the petitioner is permitted to continue his study at 3rd respondent college. It is the submission of the petitioner that on 17.12.2024, there was a false case foisted against him against Sections 126(2), 296(b), 125, 309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS in Cr.No.265 of 2024. The learned counsel further submits that he obtained bail on 04.01.2025 in Crl.MP.No.26 of 2025. Inspite of the order of bail, the 3rd respondent did not permit him to pursue his education.

3. At this juncture, the Special Government Pleader appearing for R4 would submit that it is for the University to take a call whether to admit the student or not and as far as the 4th respondent is concerned, they have no say in this matter and they have been unnecessarily impleaded in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that in view of the grave charge against the petitioner and the subsequent arrest and bail, unless the 4th respondent give no objection certificate, they would not permit the petitioner to pursue his education.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the very submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, on the face of it, they do not have any grievance to admit the petitioner to pursue his education. However, in view of the pendency of some criminal cases, they seem to have some apprehension that

permitting the petitioner would unnecessarily cause problems to the institution. But on the other hand, the 4th respondent has fairly submitted that they are the unnecessary party to the proceedings and 4th respondent neither have any objection nor have any no objection to allow the petitioner to pursue his education. Therefore, this court finds that the reason assigned for denying the petitioner right to pursue his education is not reasonable. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to pursue his education forthwith. In respect of allowing the petitioner to participate in exams and other aspects, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to follow the UCG regulation.

7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.

01.08.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order

To:

1. The Correspondent Dr.M.G.R.Educational Research and Institute Dr.M.G.R.University Madhuravoyal, Chennai

C.KUMARAPPAN.J., Gv W.P.No.20135 of 2025 01.08.2025