Durga Prasad Vs. Examination Controller, University of Allahabad

Durga Prasad vs Examination Controller, University of Allahabad

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 16, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/489805

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/489805
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: A.K. Yog, J.
Decided On: Aug 16, 1999
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14960 of 1999
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durga Prasad

Advocate V.K. Nagaich, Adv.

Respondent

Examination Controller, University of Allahabad

Advocate S.P. Singh, Adv. ;holding brief of P.S. Baghel, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)3UPLBEC1996

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....dated 16th february, 1999 was issued on the ground that petitioner was guilty of using unfair means.3. heard sri s.p. singh advocate holding brief of sri p.s. baghel, advocate learned counsel for the respondent.4. it is too late in the day for the university or its authority to issue the impugned letter requiring petitioner to surrender his b.a. part ii mark-sheet. assuming petitioner was guilty of using unfair means, there is nothing to indicate that there was material to show that petitioner is himself responsible for not getting enquiry initiated, or impugned order is issued delayed because of some collusion or pressure exerted by the petitioner on the university officials.5. the petitioner has certainly spent time and money in pursuing b.a. part iii examination without objection. he was not even made aware by the university that his admission to b.a. part iii course was subject to some enquiry. the petitioner pursued his b.a. part iii course, without any tremor or apprehension from any corner that he will not be allowed to appear in b.a. final examination, he had legitimate expectation of his result being declared after he appeared in the b.a. part iii examination.6. the university is now estopped under law from cancelling b.a. part ii mark-sheet of the petitioner because of inaction on his part. university cannot ask the petitioner to surrender mark-sheet of b.a. part ii.7. the writ petition is allowed. respondent (examination controller, university of allahabad) is further directed to declare result of the petitioner pertaining to b.a. part iii examination, 1997-98 within two weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this judgment.

Full Judgment

A.K. Yog, J.

1. Petitioner took admission in B.A. Part I and pursued his said course in academic session 1995-96. Having passed his B.A. Part II he got admission in B.A. Part III. He appeared in the examination with Roll No. 15070 conducted by the University of Allahabad through Examination Controller (Respondent). As a consequence of Petitioner being declared successful in B.A. Part II examination, he was allowed by the university to take admission in B.A. Part III course and he accordingly joined the said course. At the close of the academic session 1997-98 he was allowed to appear in examination of B.A. Part III along with all other similarly situated students without any rider. It is stated in Paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition that Petitioner appeared in B.A. Part III examination without any objection on the part of the university.

2. Petitioner asserts that result of B.A. Part III examinations of the petitioner has not been declared. The Petitioner however, received a letter dated 16th February, 1999 from respondent informing that his B.A. Part II examination has been cancelled and that his mark-sheet of B.A. Part II has been cancelled on the ground that he was amongst the students who were caught using unfair means while appearing in B.A. Part II examination of 1997 Petitioner was directed to return the mark-sheet of B.A. Part II vide letter dated 16th February, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). Admittedly, said letter dated 16th February, 1999 was issued on the ground that petitioner was guilty of using unfair means.

3. Heard Sri S.P. Singh Advocate holding brief of Sri P.S. Baghel, Advocate learned Counsel for the respondent.

4. It is too late in the day for the university or its authority to issue the impugned letter requiring Petitioner to surrender his B.A. Part II mark-sheet. Assuming Petitioner was guilty of using unfair means, there is nothing to indicate that there was material to show that Petitioner is himself responsible for not getting enquiry initiated, or impugned order is issued delayed because of some collusion or pressure exerted by the Petitioner on the University officials.

5. The Petitioner has certainly spent time and money in pursuing B.A. Part III Examination without objection. He was not even made aware by the University that his admission to B.A. Part III Course was subject to some enquiry. The petitioner pursued his B.A. Part III Course, without any tremor or apprehension from any corner that he will not be allowed to appear in B.A. Final Examination, he had legitimate expectation of his result being declared after he appeared in the B.A. Part III Examination.

6. The University is now estopped under law from cancelling B.A. Part II mark-sheet of the petitioner because of inaction on his part. University cannot ask the petitioner to surrender mark-sheet of B.A. Part II.

7. The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent (Examination Controller, University of Allahabad) is further directed to declare result of the Petitioner pertaining to B.A. Part III Examination, 1997-98 within two weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this judgment.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Durga Prasad vs Examination Controller, University of Allahabad Same Subject Constitution Same Judge A.K. Yog, J.

Constitution