Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

H.D. Praveen Kumar and Others Vs. Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi and Others

H.D. Praveen Kumar and Others vs Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 23, 2017
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1185352

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Appeal Nos. 4408-4412 of 2016 (EDN-RES)
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Karnataka High Court Act, 1984 - Section 4 - condonation of delay non-extension of duration of course completion - Appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting memoranda of appeals in time - delay in filing the appeals is, therefore, condoned - petitions are filed for extension of time as petition...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

H.D. Praveen Kumar and Others

Respondent

Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi and Others

Excerpt

karnataka high court act, 1984 - section 4 - condonation of delay non-extension of duration of course completion - appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting memoranda of appeals in time - delay in filing the appeals is, therefore, condoned - petitions are filed for extension of time as petitioners/students could not complete courses within the period prescribed for completion of courses - hence, present appeals issue is whether order of single judge, who, dismissed petitions on the ground that respondent/university, passed a resolution deciding that duration for completion of courses could not be extended is maintainable court held - appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting memoranda of appeals in time - delay in filing appeals is, therefore, condoned - application for condonation of delay is allowed - order impugned is modified - liberty is granted to petitioners to complete courses within duration prescribed in said notification upon payment of usual charges - appeals disposed of. para 12 .....the duration for completion of the courses could not be extended. hence, these appeals are filed by the students. 11. when these matters are taken up for hearing, mr.s.r.hegde hudlamane, learned advocate appearing in support of the appellants, draws our attention to the notification dated october 27, 2016, of the university concerned, annexed to the interlocutory application no.2 of 2016. the university, in principle, agreed to grant further extension of time for completion of the courses. 12. the order impugned stands modified. liberty is granted to the writ petitioners to complete the courses within the duration prescribed in the said notification dated october 27, 2016, upon payment of usual charges. 13. we are informed that some of the students had appeared in the examinations, during the pendency of the writ petitions, after obtaining leave from the court. 14. in view of the notification dated october 27, 2016, the university is directed to publish their results upon payment of usual charge, if any. 15. the appeals are, thus, disposed of. 16. in view of the disposal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications are, also, disposed of. 17. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed u/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge made in WP 1822-28/16, but referring to WP 1828/16 and WP 3315-35/16, but referring to WP 3318/16, WP 3322/16, WP 3327/16, WP 3328/16 [Education] Dated 24/3/16, by allowing the Writ Appeals filed by the Appellants and to grant the relief as prayed by them in their Respective Writ Petitions, to secure the ends of Justice and Equity.)

1. We have perused the office objections.

2. After hearing Mr.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the office objections are overruled.

3. The application for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing. The delay is of 198 days.

4. Mr.Santosh S. Nagarale, learned advocate, appears for the Visvesvaraya Technological University.

5. After hearing Mr.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, learned advocate appearing in support of the application for condonation of delay, Mr. Santosh S. Nagarale, learned advocate appearing for the Visvesvaraya Technological University and looking at the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memoranda of writ appeals in time. The delay in filing the appeals is, therefore, condoned.

6. The application for condonation of delay stands allowed.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

8. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.

9. The writ petitions were filed for extension of time as the writ petitioners - students could not complete the courses within the period prescribed for completion of the courses.

10. The Hon'ble Single Judge, rightly, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the University passed a resolution deciding that the duration for completion of the courses could not be extended. Hence, these appeals are filed by the students.

11. When these matters are taken up for hearing, Mr.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane, learned advocate appearing in support of the appellants, draws our attention to the notification dated October 27, 2016, of the University concerned, annexed to the Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2016. The University, in principle, agreed to grant further extension of time for completion of the courses.

12. The order impugned stands modified. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioners to complete the courses within the duration prescribed in the said notification dated October 27, 2016, upon payment of usual charges.

13. We are informed that some of the students had appeared in the examinations, during the pendency of the writ petitions, after obtaining leave from the Court.

14. In view of the notification dated October 27, 2016, the University is directed to publish their results upon payment of usual charge, if any.

15. The appeals are, thus, disposed of.

16. In view of the disposal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications are, also, disposed of.

17. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial