Nipun Sharma And ORS v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Institute Of Technology And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 10699 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.11.2021 Nipun Sharma and others .....Petitioners versus Dr. B.R.Ambedkar National Institute of Technology and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Vansh Chawla, , Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ****

     CM No. 8001 of 2021 The application is allowed as the same is not opposed. Copies of Annexures PB9 to PB19 be taken on record.

CWP No. 10699 of 2021 The petitioner has filed this petition making the following prayers:B i)
Issuance of a writ especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice issued by the respondent Institute/Authorities to defer the admission of the selected candidates i.e. the instant petitioners as doing the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary, whimsical.

ii)
Issue a writ especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to start the session of the instant petitioners. iii)
Issuance of writ especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 21.05.2021 whereby the session of instant petitioners have again been deferred arbitrarily by the respondents.



 

 [2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders/notices dated 30.12.2020 and 21.05.2021 (Annexures PB1 and PB2) whereby the admission process has been deferred by the respondentBauthorities.

The respondents have filed a return placing on record the order dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure RB2), which is being reproduced hitherto below, by way of which the respondentBauthorities have now cancelled the entire admission process and withdrawn the advertisement and have also permitted the students to withdraw the fee deposited by them. Further, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed against petitioner No.12 with exemplary costs for suppression of material fact: that she had applied for refund of fee and the requisite amount has since been refunded.

  



                     

           !"#"#   "$#$"#"#              "%#&"#"# 

     '   ' 

       () !*&    

 

   

   

     + , -  

 

   

                 .   /      0

                    '-     .  

     '         -   

   ' .  

        1    

    



 

 [3]            () 

 - 

        

          2-     3  ()      

    .   .

       

    

      

      -  -  - ' 

                        -   2       

           !"#"#     '    2      



   .    

.        *#   

 .   

            4""#5"#"* / 6!  2 7 In such circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication in the matter as the impugned orders/notices dated 30.12.2020 and 21.05.2021 have been rendered meaningless in view of the subsequent orders passed by the respondentBauthorities. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with liberty to avail the remedy as shall be available in law.

All miscellaneous applications are also accordingly disposed of. (RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 25.11.2021 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√