Madhya Pradesh High Court
Revakhande Sangeet Mahavid.,Mandla vs Indira Kala Sangeet Vish.Khairagarh on 18 March, 2015
Writ Petition No :: 4875 / 2007
Revakhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya Vs. Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya and anothers
18.03.2015.
Shri Gajendra Tapsikar for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Gautam for the respondents.
This petition was filed in the year 2007 when the respondent No.1/University did not recognize and permit the petitioner/Institute to function as an Examination Centre for examination of the students that was being conducted by the University in question.
By virtue of an interlocutory order passed on 12.4.2007, the Institute was permitted to conduct the Examination for the Academic Session 2006-07, and thereafter the matter is still pending.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even now the petitioner/Institute is not being permitted to function as an Examination Centre.
However, after the Academic Session 2006-07, when this dispute arose, more than eight years have passed; the requirement of law for permitting recognizing the Institute to function as an Examination Centre would have changed and the structure and the development of the petitioner/Institute would also have changed entitling them to claim the benefit of discharging duties as an Examination Centre.
Taking note of all these factors, for the present without entering into the controversy on merits, it is directed that in case petitioner/Institute is still not permitted to or recognized as an Examination Centre by respondent No.1/University, and the petitioner/Institute is still interested in getting the benefit of 2 being recognized and permitted to function as an Examination Centre, they are granted liberty to make an appropriate application in this regard to the respondent No.1/University and the University is directed to consider the representation and request made in this regard by the petitioner and decide it in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of its presentation.
The representation, if required, be made or if the statutory provision contemplates submission of an application alongwith requisite fee in a prescribed proforma, the representation shall be in such a form and such fee, as is prescribed in the statutory provision.
With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner to seek the benefit afresh from the University/respondent No.1, this petition stands disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-