Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V.NAGARATHNA, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, JJ.
THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) THE VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI – 590 018 REP. BY B.E.RANGASWAMY - Appellant
Vs.
MR. MOHAMMED AZVIN, S/O. ABDUL KHADER - Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.333 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
Connected with
WRIT APPEAL No.400 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
Decided On : 01-07-2021
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4-Education – Examination - Punishment imposed by the Registrar (Evaluation) - TO PERMIT RESPONDENT NO.l TO ATTEND THE VII SEMESTER EXAMS -
Finding of the Court:
Punishment which had been imposed by MC was to deny the benefit of performance of all the examination conducted during june-July 2018 for all subjects in which the appellant student had registered for examination. Also, the order of the Registrar (Evaluation) has imposed further punishments apart from the one that has been ratified by MC3- Registrar (Evaluation) has usurped the powers of the Executive Council in the instant case arid has unilaterally imposed punishments on the appellant-student. On the recommendation made by MC3, there is no consideration of the same by the Executive Council of the respondent-university. Thus, the ViceChancellor as well as Executive Council have been by-passed in the instant case. Hence, on that short ground alone, we say that the procedure contemplated as per Reguiations- 2009 has not been adhered to in the instant case and therefore, the punishment imposed on tne appeliant-student as per order dated 10.08.2018 is not in accordance with Regulations-2009. But the matter does not end- when an order is not supported by reasons or it is a non-speaking order, it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record judicial review of nature of punishment imposed on the appellant-student is called for on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality of punishment. what is envisaged under the Guidelines for Recommending Penalty and Punishment under Regulations-2009 is not a single punishment. There is a choice/option which could be exercised by the authority which has to impose the punishment. There are as many as five types of punishments and while imposing a particular punishment, the severity of the nature of malpractice has to be considered and reasons have to be recorded for imposing such a punishment
Result: Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.15032/2020 whereunder the look-out circular/communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively preventing petitioner from traveling out of India and consequential endorsement dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure-A) issued by the first respondent came to be upheld and writ petition came to be dismissed.
The parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petitions.
2. Petitioner, who had booked a flight ticket to travel from Bengaluru to Abu Dhabi on 14.11.2020, was denied immigration clearance and was not permitted to travel by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the said action of respondents, petitioner filed W.P.No.13862/2020 during December 2020. On 10.12.2020 respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a memo enclosing the impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020, informing the writ court that petitioner had been stopped from traveling by the respondents due to the Look Out Circulars dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, challenging the said impugned endorsement namely, dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure-A) and issuance of Look Out Circular/Communication dated 08.05.2020 and 18.07.2020 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively, W.P.No.15032/2020 came to be filed by the petitioner and said writ petition was heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 12.02.2021. Hence, this intra-court appeal.
FACTS OF THE CASE AS PLEADED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITIONS
3. It was contended by the petitioner that he is a promoter of various companies in the field of pharmaceutical, hospitality, healthcare and foreign exchange businesses. It is further contended that said companies were under his control from its inception in early 2000s till 2015-17. Petitioner also claimed that he had stepped down from the management of the companies to the Senior Officers during 2015-17. It was further averred that due to various illegal activities and mismanagement of said companies by the then officers and persons in control and management, said companies ran into financial irregularities leading to default in servicing of loans taken by such companies from various financial institutions/Banks.
4. Petitioner had also contended that various Banks have initiated several proceedings against the companies and also against the petitioner in the capacity of being a guarantor of such loans. The list of cases pending against the petitioner has been produced at Annexure-E, which would indicate that there are about 33 cases pending against the petitioner and same are pending in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It is also stated that third respondent has filed a suit for specific performance in Commercial O.S.No.1/2020 against petitioner, wherein an application for grant of ad-interim order of temporary injunction to restrain the petitioner from alienating and/or encumbering the immovable properties described at Item Nos.1 to 13 and 16 of plaint schedule came to be granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in COMAP Nos.26/2020 c/w 27/2020 & 28/2020 vide order dated 17.04.2020.
5. It is also contended by the petitioner that ICICI Bank has filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.614/2020, which is pending before the Commercial Court, Mangalore in which, there is an order of ad-interim temporary injunction dated 10.07.2020 passed against the petitioner. Petitioner has also contended that Commercial Bank of Dubai has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner in O.S.No.198/2020 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in which case, there is an order of ad-interim temporary injunction passed on 14.08.2020.
6. Petitioner has contended that he is ordinarily residing and carrying on business at UAE and had visited India during February, 2020 and on account of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
