IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 28th day of June, 2017 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR Writ Appeal No.4217 of 2017 (EDN–EX) BETWEEN:
ST.ALOYSIUS COLLEGE MANGALORE-575 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL ...APPELLANT (BY SHRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. Ms.RUTH CLARE D' SILVA D/O.RUFFERT D' SILVA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT No. 3-23-1981 EL-SHADDAI, B/H. JUGUL TOWERS MALLIKATTE, MANGALORE-575 002 2. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTRI MANGALORE-574 199 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.64764/2016 DATED 06/06/2017.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated June 6, 2017, passed in Writ Petition No.64764 of 2016.
2. The respondent No.1 in the said writ petition is the appellant before us.
3. The writ petition was filed seeking for an order permitting the writ petitioner to appear for the fourth semester B.Com (Professional) course examination for the academic year 2016-2017.
4. Admittedly, on March 15, 2017, an interim order was passed permitting the writ petitioner to appear in the examination. By the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Judge directed the appellant-respondent No.1 to announce the results of the petitioner in respect of the said course.
5. Mr. M.S. Varadarajan, learned advocate for the appellant, submits that the petitioner-respondent No.1 has no right either to appear in the examination or to get the results declared.
6. When the writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble Single Judge, we decline to express any opinion. We, however, request the Hon’ble Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously.
7. However, the publication of the result will abide by the result of the writ petition.
8. The writ appeal stands disposed of.
9. In view of disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, disposed of.
10. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE cp* Sd/- JUDGE