IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51354/2019 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN:
1. MANIKANTA NAYAKA R S/O RAMANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT No.108, NAGARATHAHALLI RAYANKERE POST, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU – 57 0008.
USN No.4MH18EC060 2. SAGAR K S/O KUMAR SWAMY R AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/AT No.63, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS E & F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSURU – 570008 USN No.4MH18ME072 3. ABDULLA A BASIT S/O ABDUL BASIT AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT No.329, 1ST MAIN, 8TH CROSS SIDDIQUE NAGAR, BANNI MANTAP MYSURU – 570008 USN No.4MH18ME002 4. PRATHEEKA J D/O JAGANNATH S AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT No.511, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS, T.N. PURA MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 USN No.4MH17ECO71 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI MANOJ B.G. ADV.] AND:
1. REGISTRAR VISVESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY JNAN SANGAMA BELGAUM – 590018 2. PRINCIPAL MAHARAJA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BELAWADI, NAGUVANAHALLI POST SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA – 571477.
…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R1] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPROVAL LIST PASSED BY R-1 VISVESHWARAIAH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AS PER ANNEXURE – D VIDE DATED 21.09.2019.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel Sri. Santosh S. Nagarale accepts notice for respondent No.1.
The petitioners have challenged the approval list of respondent No.1 – University dated 21.09.2019 insofar as denial of approval of the petitioners for change of branch, the details of which are as under:-
1) Manikanta Nayaka R – Electronic and Communication to Civil Engineering;
2) Sagar K – Mechanical Engineering to Civil Engineering;
3) Abdullah A Basit – Mechanical Engineering to Information Science;
4) Pratheeka J – Electronic and Communication to Information Science.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that no reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 – University for rejecting their request for change of branch.
3. It is well settled law that any order passed by the University affecting the rights of the students has to be a speaking order. In the absence of the reasons, it is hard to know the mind of the University for rejecting the request of the petitioners. Reasons are the link for the decision taken by the University.
4. Hence, respondent No.1 – University is directed to pass a speaking order considering the request of the petitioners for change of branch in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR