IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1552 OF 2016 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VALUCHIL, ARKULA P.O.
PARANGIPETE MANGALURU – 574 143 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
[ ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. JILBIN JOSEPH SON OF SRI. JOSEPH AGED 21 YEARS RESIDING AT ENNAMBRAYALI HOUSE CHAVARA NAGAR, IRITTY – 670 703 KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA.
2. VISHWESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY "JNANA SANGAMA", BELGAUM – 590 018 KARNATAKA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. PURUSHOTHAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 –ABSENT;
SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29302 OF 2015 DATED 28/01/2016 AND DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN TO HAND OVER THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THE APPELLANTS TILL SUCH TIME HE PAYS THE ENTIRE COURSE FEE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.29302 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge directing the second respondent to return the documents with liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount, respondent No.2 therein has filed this writ appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the documents were returned. The aforesaid appeal is filed only insofar as the direction for granting liberty to recover the amount.
4. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge having considered the material on record reserved liberty to the management to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the amount which the appellant claims as their entitlement should be necessarily recovered by them in the manner known to law without holding the documents in the guise of the petitioner not returning the amount. Since the liberty is granted, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA