The petitioner before this Court is a student of respondent no.1 – Amity University. The Attendance Rules of the University expect a student to have 100% attendance. The relaxation upto a maxium of 25%, however, can allowed by the Head of the Institution/Head of Department in a case of sickness or some other valid reasons beyond the control of the student. A student whose attendance is less than 75%, however, is not permitted to appear in the End- Semester Examination. In special circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor of the University can condone the attendance upto 5% below 75% on the recommendation of the Head of Department.

The petitioner before this Court could not attend classes for the period from 4.9.2012 to 12.10.2012 in the Third Semester of the B.Sc. (Hons.) Bio-Technology Course though for the rest of the period, her attendance is alleged to be 90%. On 19.11.2012, the petitioner was informed that she has been detained and will not be issued Admit Card for the Third Semester commencing 20.11.2012. She is, therefore, before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case and pursue the same;

(b) A writ of certiorari quashing the action on part of the respondents in detaining the petitioner to sit for the third semester/second year examination of B.Sc Biotechnology course to be held from 20th of November 2012 on the ground of shortage of attendance (less than 75%), without considering the factual position that she could not attend classes for the five weeks due to serious illness and hospitalization and for the rest of the period she has about 90% attendance and being a second year student can be promoted to the third year with the requirement to make up the deficiency in the third year of the course, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, whimsical, unjust and in violation of the Rules and Regulations and the Principles of Equity, Justice and Good Conscience;

(c) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to sit for her third semester/second year examination of B.Sc. (Hons) Biotechnology course.

2. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents and in its counter affidavit, the respondent no.1 – Amity University has taken a preliminary objection that since the said University is outside Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent no.2, which is a society, has in its counter affidavit denied the averment that it is managing the respondent no.1 – university and has stated that it only sponsored the said university at the time it was established, whereafter the respondent no.1 became a separate juristic entity.

3. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 – Amity University was set up by an Act passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature, known as Amity University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2005. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is now a statutory body capable of suing and being sued. As far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it is a society which had initially sponsored Amity University, but since the university is now a statutory body, managing its own affairs, the respondent no.1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition. The name of respondent no.2 is, therefore, deleted from the array of respondents.

4. The petitioner was studying at Noida where the campus of Amity University is situated. The admission by the petitioner was taken at Nodia. The order detaining the petitioner on account of shortage of attendance has been passed by the University at Noida. Therefore, neither the respondent – university is situated nor any cause of action to file the present writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, read as under:

“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jur