IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.5097 OF 2016(EDN – RES) BETWEEN:
1 . THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MANGALURU UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTHRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 199.
2 . THE REGISTRAR, MANGALURU UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTHRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 199.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.BELLE.R, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SANTHOSH.M SON OF VISHVESHWARA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, M.Sc. 2ND YEAR MAINE GEOLOGY MARINE GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, RESIDENT OF MAROLI MANE, EDAMANGALA VILLAGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 199.
2. THE CHANCELLOR MANGALURU UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTHRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 199.
... RESPONDENTS (SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NO.2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 60074 OF 2016 DATED 05.12.2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2016 passed in writ petition No.60074 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, in partly allowing the Writ Petition and directing the respondent-University to permit the writ petitioner to pay fees, to take up the examination and other consequential orders, respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein have filed this appeal.
2. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants’ counsel submits that in the light of the entire investigation and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and that the trial has commenced, the order of the learned Single Judge consequently becomes unsustainable. Serious allegations made against respondent No.1 have been established by filing of the charge sheet. When a student is accused of for having committed such a heinous offence, he should not have been permitted to take up the examination by condoning the shortage of examination.
3. The same is disputed to by the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that interference is called for. There is a charge against respondent No.1 that he fixed the mobile as camera in the toilet of the girls’ hostel. Subsequently, he was arrested and suspended. Presently, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. The learned Single Judge has therefore committed an error in granting the reliefs to respondent No.1-writ petitioner.
5. Under these circumstances, keeping in mind that the charge sheet has already been filed, a direction to the appellants-University to accept fee, to permit respondent No.1 to take up the examination, to condone the delay for shortage of attendance, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.60074 of 2016 is set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-