Ghulam Mohammed S/O S Mahaboob Basha vs The Director General Of Civil Aviation on 10 February, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ghulam Mohammed S/O S Mahaboob Basha vs The Director General Of Civil Aviation on 10 February, 2011

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

4%

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10%: DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011
BEFORE A A

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM MOHAN"RE'D:I)€*{-. 

War: Iwrrrzox No. 12953/2008   'A

BETVVEEN:

GHULAM MOHAMMED

S / O S MAHABOOB BASHA

AGE: 17%. YRS

MINOR REP BY PIES FATHER ANS

NATURAL GUARDIAN  "I-AHA_:BOO§3 BASHA
N011, ESTH MAIN, KAUsA'RNAc;A;§;  " "
R.T.NAGAR, BANGAL0RI~:w::;2 ' 2

A V" "  PETITTONER

[BY SR1.  sHEA121mé;'*~A;_;9.V.}  A

1.  D£RECf1'0«Rj--:}-I£NI3:';"<AL OF' CIVIL AVIATION
GOV§_?.R:~iMENT OF 'INDIA
, « OPPOSITESAFDARJUNG AIRPORT
» NEW }:)I3:L"H§ 1 10' 003

A j'2., _\AA/is; P/{AEROSPACE

A * SR1. N AMARESH. CGSC FOR R1

 A. . MAINTENANCE ENGINEERS
. "FRAENIVNGV.INSTITU'1'E 'NXTEE ETS CAMPUS AT
C.A.NO..'}5/1.A, 13TH 'A' MAIN ROAD
 SEC',Fi)R-A, YELAHANKA NEW TOVVN.
,. BANGALORE-GKLREP BY ADMENISTRATION
MANAGER MANJU P
 RESPONDENTS

A M/S. G. S. BHA'.I.'&r. ASSTS, ADVS. FOR R2; % «ax I E x.) 3 THIS W'.P. IS FILED UNDER AR'I'ICI,EZS 226 AND 22'? OF THE CONST}'I'{E'I'ION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNE-D ORDER OF Ti-IE 2ND RE'SPONDEE\§'I'A'I'ANNEX--L DT. E2/9.2008 BEARING NO NUMBER AS ILLEGAL BY ISS-SING A 'WRIT OF CERTIORARI; AND CONSP:Q{}ENTTJY ORDER TFIE IST RESPONDENT TO DIRECT TINIT;-I 2ND RESPONDENT TO' THE TUITION FEE AND OTHER FEES OF RS._...f2_.45Q 'I,..EiKIIS COLLECTED BY TF'iE)I\/I UNDER THE REICEIPT-r__A"I"' BEARING NO. 5.329 DT. 2.6.2008 BY ESSUIE\EG__ A:v*'NRIT'OIF MANDAMUS.

THIS WP. IS COMING ON Fog FRL.iﬁIEir\f§i'Nt} 'i39Ij'G.i2'ti.:;P THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLIQOWING: " ». 2 onoean The petitioner';'When aidvfnitte'd.Mto the course in Associate Member ofiﬁertgritauticaivVhSo_ei.ety of India and Aircraft Engineering'----License, said to be equivaierlt tvoiv-;r3-EL'Vin'Ae1to1ia..uticaI Engineering, awarded by the Aeronaiitieai°j.Society of India, in the 2nd res1;jo'ndent, is said to have paid ? 250,000/-- text/ards.Mt1ii'tion fee and other fees, in addition to ? ~.'iI1.O0VOpetitioner alieging that the course is only a and not equivalent to a B.E.degree course has._ preferred this petition to quash the letter cit. IE2'/I9/2008, Annexure--L, of the 211$ respondent, EM ,3, dec1i_:t1:i:r1g to i'€f'ti.I1C1 the fees and for a direrxiion to repay ? 250,000/--.

2. Sri Kaleemullah Shariff, learned Co1ir;.s_e1_V_for the petitioner, is unable to point out to in support of the contention that the 'whi_eh". the petitioner is admitted, is not degree course. though theiV_p'r.ospeetLis,. to statement of objections deser_i.bi11g the"'evo'u:rs5e details, states that the said 'eo'u'rs<--:ff.Visu2'etq1.iiva1ent to BE. in Aeronauticai {;'11.ginee'ring;: the Aeronautical Society of _» Vievxfot' theniatter, petition is without merit anti accordingly Vvrejeieted.

Séf w E §E§ REV M x

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court