Tripuresh Tripathi vs University Grant Commission ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6903 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 26023 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Tripuresh Tripathi
 
Respondent :- University Grant Commission Thru. Its Secy. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande,Onkar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,H.A.B. Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. This case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. Cases of additional list are being revised.

3. No one is connected on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra appears for respondent no. 2, whereas Mr. H.A.B. Sinha appears for respondent no. 6.

5. This writ petition has been filed, seeking following reliefs:-

a) Issue the writ of mandamus to the respondents Union of India Ministry of Human Resources Development and University Grants Commission to ensure the application of different provisions of UGC regulation on the deemed university 2016 in its letter and spirit and to take action against the universities who have failed to implement the provisions of the said regulation as provided in the regulations itself, contained as annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.

b) To issue any other.........in the facts of the present case."

6. The Court vide order dated 27.10.2016 required the petitioner to file appropriate supplementary affidavit within two weeks. The order dated 27.10.2016, for convenience, is reproduced herein below:-

"The petitioner has not brought on record any specific instances indicating the actual violation of any of the regulations that have been enforced by the UGC by the ten institutions, namely respondents no.3 to 12 arrayed herein. In the absence of any such positive material having been asserted by the petitioner in this public interest litigation, we cannot presume at this stage that the said institutions have violated the notifications issued by the University Grants Commission meant for deemed to be Universities.

Consequently, the petitioner may file an appropriate supplementary affidavit in this regard within two weeks.

List immediately thereafter. The petitioner shall also bring on record the judgment dated 23.12.2015 in relation to the respondent no.6."

7. We have been informed by the Bench Secretary that no supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents also inform that they have not received copy of the supplementary affidavit.

8. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that since the petitioner has not brought specific instances of actual violation of any regulation of the UGC by 10 institutions, namely, respondent nos. 3 to 12 arrayed in the writ petition and, in absence of such specific material having been asserted by the petitioner in this public interest litigation petition, we do not find it appropriate to keep the petition pending. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

[D.K. Singh, J.] [R.R. Awasthi, J.]

Order Date :- 1.7.2021

MVS/-