Full Text
Translation output
f * $-16-1^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CI 10289/2017& C.M.No.41942/2017
KANNAN GOPAL VINOD Petitioner
Through Mr.M.Dutta,Adv.
W.P.(CI 10289/2017& C.M.No.41942/2017
KANNAN GOPAL VINOD Petitioner
Through Mr.M.Dutta,Adv.
VERSUS
GURU GOVIND SINGHINDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. - Respondents
( Through Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
'Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Mr.Rajan Chawla,Adv.for R-2.
( Through Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
'Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Mr.Rajan Chawla,Adv.for R-2.
W.PTCI 10330/2017& C.M.No.42114/2017
MS.MONTKA KATYAL , Petitioner \ Through Mr.Harish Katyal,Adv.with
Ms.Renuka Katyal,Adv.
MS.MONTKA KATYAL , Petitioner \ Through Mr.Harish Katyal,Adv.with
Ms.Renuka Katyal,Adv.
VERSUS
GURU GOBIND SINGHINDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. Respondents
Through Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Ms.Binisa Mohanty,Adv.for R-2.
Mr.PreetPal Singh,Adv.for BCI.
W.P.rCI 10344/2017& C.M.No.42I51/2017 ASTHA JAIN AND ORS. Petitioners
Through Mr.Sidharth Chopra,Adv.with Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa,Adv.
Through Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Ms.Binisa Mohanty,Adv.for R-2.
Mr.PreetPal Singh,Adv.for BCI.
W.P.rCI 10344/2017& C.M.No.42I51/2017 ASTHA JAIN AND ORS. Petitioners
Through Mr.Sidharth Chopra,Adv.with Mr.Vishesh Wadhwa,Adv.
VERSUS
GURU GOBIND SINGH E^RAPRASTHA 2018:DHC:8545
? •*
UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Through
♦
Respondents Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Ms.Binisa Mohanty,Adv.for R-2.
Mr.PreetPal Singh,Adv.for BCI.
GORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
09.03.2018 Videthe presentpetitions,the petitioners had soughta direction to respondent no.l/University to permit them to appear in the end
( term semester examinations which were to be held in November-
December,2017. Therecord showsthaton 20^*^ November,2017,this
Court was informed that the respondent no.1 had constituted an
Expert Committee to examine the grievances raised by the petitioner and other similarly placed students. In the light of the aforesaid statement oflearned counsel for respondent no.l,this Court had vide its order dated 20'^ November,2017, directed that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the semester examination with a rider that the result of the examination would be subject to the outcome of the report ofthe Expert Committee.'
Today, learned counsel for respondent no.l submits that the
Expert Committee has given its report making certain recommendations and has issued the directions to respondent no.2/Amity Law School. Copy ofthe said report has been handed over in Court and the same is taken on record. In view of the recommendations made and directions giyen to respondentno.2in the
■J
: said report, the petitioners do not wish'to press the present petitions any further, . ' ^
Learhed counsel for,respondent nO.2, however, submits that respondent no.2 may be granted liberty to challenge the saidreport if
. so advised., AccoMngly, "rfespondent no.2 wiir be at libeity to challenge the fepoif,.ifpermissible as per law. .
.'Mr.Preetpal Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent rio.3/Bar Council ofIndia in WP(C) Nos.10330/2017 & 10344/2017, submits, that he also wishesyto challenge the report. However, . keeping in view the fact that the recommendations atid directions in the Expert Committee Report,are;not directed against the Bar Council of India,;! see no reason to grant liberty to Bar Council of India to
: challenge the said report. However^ the.Bar Council of India as a statutory body,"Wouldbe free to take appropriate action as per lawifit has any grieyance against any action ofrespondent nos.1& 2.
^ ' ' ' It is niade clear that this Court has not examined the report of theExpert Committee nor giveh any opiniononthe saidreport.
The petitions,and pending applications are disposed of as not pressed.: . -
MARCH 09, 2018/aa REKHi! PAL
? •*
UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Through
♦
Respondents Mr.Harsh Kaushik,Adv.for R-1.
Mr.Amitesh Kumar,Adv.with Ms.Binisa Mohanty,Adv.for R-2.
Mr.PreetPal Singh,Adv.for BCI.
GORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
09.03.2018 Videthe presentpetitions,the petitioners had soughta direction to respondent no.l/University to permit them to appear in the end
( term semester examinations which were to be held in November-
December,2017. Therecord showsthaton 20^*^ November,2017,this
Court was informed that the respondent no.1 had constituted an
Expert Committee to examine the grievances raised by the petitioner and other similarly placed students. In the light of the aforesaid statement oflearned counsel for respondent no.l,this Court had vide its order dated 20'^ November,2017, directed that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the semester examination with a rider that the result of the examination would be subject to the outcome of the report ofthe Expert Committee.'
Today, learned counsel for respondent no.l submits that the
Expert Committee has given its report making certain recommendations and has issued the directions to respondent no.2/Amity Law School. Copy ofthe said report has been handed over in Court and the same is taken on record. In view of the recommendations made and directions giyen to respondentno.2in the
■J
: said report, the petitioners do not wish'to press the present petitions any further, . ' ^
Learhed counsel for,respondent nO.2, however, submits that respondent no.2 may be granted liberty to challenge the saidreport if
. so advised., AccoMngly, "rfespondent no.2 wiir be at libeity to challenge the fepoif,.ifpermissible as per law. .
.'Mr.Preetpal Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent rio.3/Bar Council ofIndia in WP(C) Nos.10330/2017 & 10344/2017, submits, that he also wishesyto challenge the report. However, . keeping in view the fact that the recommendations atid directions in the Expert Committee Report,are;not directed against the Bar Council of India,;! see no reason to grant liberty to Bar Council of India to
: challenge the said report. However^ the.Bar Council of India as a statutory body,"Wouldbe free to take appropriate action as per lawifit has any grieyance against any action ofrespondent nos.1& 2.
^ ' ' ' It is niade clear that this Court has not examined the report of theExpert Committee nor giveh any opiniononthe saidreport.
The petitions,and pending applications are disposed of as not pressed.: . -
MARCH 09, 2018/aa REKHi! PAL
JUDGMENT