Socio Economic v. Cultural Association
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. As a matter of fact, the very writ petition could have been withdrawn on the said ground. Even otherwise, the writ petition came to be filed against the VTU and other officials concerned and not against the individual person i.e., Dr.Balaveerreddy. If the appellants…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ WRIT APPEAL NO.597 OF 2007 (E4n - Rc) Between:
1. Socio Economic and Cultural Association Bijapur (SECAB) Nauraspur, Bijapur Represented by its Secretary Sri A.S.Patil Aged about 49 years
2. SECAB Institute of Engineering and Technology Nauraspur, Bijapur Rep. By its Principal Prof. Z.A.Punekar Aged about 44 years (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande (NOC) and M.B.Nargund & Sona Vakkund, Advs) Appellants And:
Visveswarayya Technical University, Rep. By its Registrar Gnanasangala Belgaum-5900 14 ‘2
The State of Karnataka Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Dept. of Higher Education MS. Building Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001
All India Council for Technical Education Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, l.P. Estate New Delhi By its Chairman. (By M/s.Basava Prabhu S.Patil Associates N.B.Bhat, Adv for R3 and Sri Manvendra Reddy, GA) for C/Ri, Sri 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.2791/2007 dated 21.03.2007. This Appeal coming on for admission this day, Manju.la Chellur J, delivered the following: JUDGMENT This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim orders granted in W.P.No.279 1/2007.
2. During the pendency of this Writ Appeal, appellants sought for withdrawal of the writ petition on account of extension of affiliation for the academic year 2006-2007 being granted by order dated 17.06.2010. 3 Thereafter, the appellants were permitted to withdraw the writ petition and accordingly, the said writ petition came to be withdrawn by order dated 2 1.06.2010.
3. Now the appellants want to withdraw the writ appeal as well, in view of the extension of affiliation, but however, they seek liberty to take appropriate action against Dr. Balaveerreddy, the then Vice Chancellor of respondent No. 1-University on the ground that he acted in a mala fide way against the interest of the appellants Institution.
Operative part
As a matter of fact, the very writ petition could have been withdrawn on the said ground. Even otherwise, the writ petition came to be filed against the VTU and other officials concerned and not against the individual person i.e., Dr.Balaveerreddy. If the appellants intend to take any legal action against the then Dr. Balaveerreddy, Vice Chancellor, either civil or criminal, it would be against the said Vice Chancellor in his individual capacity for his action as Vice Chancellor at the relevant point of time. ,c7 4 Therefore, question of reserving liberty would not arise as withdrawal of the writ petition or the withdrawal of writ appeal against the University and other Departments cannot treated a action against Dr. Balaveerreddy. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. JT/- Sd/ JUDGE Sd! JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.