Anand Engineering College vs Union Of India And Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2665 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No.10141/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 16.07.2009

Anand Engineering College                             .... Petitioner
                    Through Mr.Prag Chawla, Advocate.

                                Versus

Union of India and Anr.                           .... Respondents
                     Through Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the
                             respondent No.1.
                             Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate for the
                             respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be            YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?               NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in           NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J. ORAL

*

Issue notice to the respondents. Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj accepts

notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Jatan Singh accepts notice

on behalf of respondent No.2.

Mr.Jatan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states

that in view of compliance of order dated 20th May, 2009 whereby an

amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid to the complainant Rama Gogia

pursuant to the order dated 20th May, 2009 in Contempt Petition

No.437/2008 and that other compliance has been done by the

petitioner, reply is not to be filed. The counsel for respondent No.1 says

that no relief is prayed against the respondent No.1.

The petitioner has sought direction to the respondent to grant

extension of approval for the academic year 2009-2010 and for setting

aside the letter dated 8th May, 2009 issued by respondent No.2 refusing

to extend the approval for the academic year 2009-2010.

The letter dated 8th May, 2009 refusing to extend the approval

stipulates that the action for not extending the approval is on account

of non compliance of the order of the High Court in contempt petition

filed by a candidate and for non submission of compliance report to the

respondent No.2 by 31st August, 2008.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated

20th May, 2009 has been complied and a copy of the cheque with the

endorsement of the receipt of the cheque by the mother of the

complainant Rama Gogia has been produced. The counsel for

respondent No.2 does not refute this.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that the

petitioner has also reaverred the other objection raised in the letter

dated 8th May, 2009 since the compliance report had been submitted by

the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the grounds on which the extension of

approval was declined by the respondent No.2 do not survive. The

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that there is no other

ground for withholding the extension of approval by respondent No.2 to

the petitioner.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. the respondent

No.2 is directed to issue an appropriate letter/communication to the

petitioner extending the approval of the petitioner for the academic year

2009-2010 forthwith.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Considering the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their

own costs. Pending applications are also disposed of.

Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court

Master.

July 16, 2009                                         ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'