IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50420/2019 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN :
SAI PRANAV P., S/O PRAVEEN KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS NO.64/3, LAKSHMI KRUPA SHANKAR MUTT ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV.) AND :
1 . VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA BELGAVI -590 018 RPE BY ITS REGISTRAR 2 . BMS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BULL TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 019 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI BADRI VISHAL, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 UNIVERSITY TO PERMIT CHANGE OF BRANCH OF PETITIONER FROM INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT TO EITHER COMPUTER SCIENCE OR INFORMATION SCIENCE IN THE R-2 COLLEGE FROM THE 3RD SEMESTER AS PER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 University to permit change of branch of petitioner from Industrial Engineering and Management to either Computer Science or Information Science in the 2nd respondent College from the 3rd Semester as per the application of the petitioner at Annexure-C and the recommendation of the 2nd respondent at Annexure-D inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to attend the classes of the 3rd Semester in Computer Science in the 2nd respondent College.
2. The petitioner got admitted to B.E. course in the branch of Industrial Engineering and Management in the 2nd respondent-college. Change of branch was sought by the petitioner by submitting the application before the 2nd respondent which was forwarded to the respondent No.1-University with a recommendation of the College-respondent No.2.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no action has been taken by the University on the said application submitted by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1- University would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the change of branch in terms of clause (6) of the AICTE Guidelines and hence, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No.1-Unviersity is obligated to pass a speaking order considering the application submitted by the petitioner through the respondent No.2 Institution. The respondent No.1 University cannot sit over the matter without taking a decision in the matter and communicating the same to the petitioner. Hence, the respondent No.1 shall consider the application of the petitioner for change of branch and take a decision in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: