Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Upadhya Art Foundation vs The Karnataka State Open University on 5 June, 2008

Author: B.V.Nagarathna

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

I 1 -
IN THE HIGH CGSRT SF KARNATAKA AI BANGALGRE 5 
DATES THIS THE 5" DAY 3? JURE 2698 _WI>'

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTECE B v~NAGga§TH$§*T4x'f? "

W 9 NO.l8546/2807 (saw RE§+§)

BETWEEN

UPRBHYA ART FOSNDATION ;"" , *,
REPRESENTED BY ITS §RESIDEfiT* zIV_
Mr B.A.UPADH¥A ,* '.ig= =.=
3/0. ANDAQPAV '-

AaaD_A50¢IfS2*:EAR§fi_""
NO.I45, 'Rf BLQ£K. »,
sAME3HAwAGAR»§_'I v.'

N.R.MQHALLA~V .I_ »_~,~
Mys0ag:§?@v0G? ', I'; ... PETITIGNER

'"gBy st; 3 R $HAILENDRA, ADV.,)

"THE'KAR£AI§KA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MANASAGRNQOTRI
MIs§RE¢5?0 066

. RE?RESENTED BY ITS

f» "REGISTRAR ... RESPONDENT

:(By 3:: V NARAEANA SWAMY, ABV.,) V_v ; '~"THIS WP FILED PRAYENG TO BECLARE THE ACTEON '.'»_Q3VIHE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY IN NOT RPPROVING THE *, MASTER'S DEGREE AND ?H.D, couasgs 09 THE

- 2 _ ?ETITEON£R FOUNDATIGN As BEENG ARBITRAT A§E; x ILLEGAL AND VIQLATIVE 0? ARTICLE 14,"o§_ ?HE_"--"

CONSTITfiTION OF INDIA; DIRECT ?HE_HR$sPoNbzN? UNVERSITY TO RECONSIDER RND APPRQVE THE MA$TER?3 = DEGREE AND PH.D, ccuasas TO $32 ya Irzemgp, AND GRA§T ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BEfiEF2T3' ANm~_'GRA§$'?[ INTEREM ORDER T0 BIRECT THE RES?GNSENT UNIVERSETY* we A99RovE THE MASTERS DEGREE AND §H.D CQURSES Q? $52 PETITIONER FOUNDR?1ON. ' '= w 'a r * THIS PETITION €QMENG""0§"uFQR §RmL:M:NAR¥ HEARINGw'B' GROUP TH:sf~DA¥,; TH£ .CCURT MADE THE EGLLOWZNG: "[* *-9»v 2*. W The peEit§éner'« £3 .3af $é§istered Axt Eoundatign_,and £unfiing_ an' academy by name "Sri Aiiama Qrabhu "--Eaii€kai$ Academy". it had submit:éd a 'p;6p0s3l to the respondent for _pérmié3idfi' flea commence B.F.A., M.F.A., 8.Music, M}Mu3ic}. B}Dance, M.Bance and Ph.D. cour3e in h', Finén3rtsr_Buéic and Dance from the respondent~ ~,University§ VM2g' The University by its Communication " §atéd 22.7.2006 has appreved only B.F.A., and H'g_B.NuSiC courgas, but has rejected the reguest m 3 _ made by the petitioner in respect oft courses mentioned above. Being aggrieéed by the said rejection, the petitionér gma§e*,one"mo;e%yA Q"C~1i'}.*E3j representation dated l3.6fZQQ? hath Annefiq;e_ +-
Lu which has not been consideted'tili"dete oy respondent.
\ 9.
4:
3. Under the ciroumttancesg the respondent is directed to fiohsider the representation made by the petitionetedated_i3}5."§G7 at Annexure 'Z' and page orders-Vinfieeoooflfianee with law with regard to the " commepeehent of the courses \"-'~f o mentioned in Ahnexnre-- a .....

*~4.= fwtig'j<_@et:tion is disposed of ggcGQréingly;~Th:ee months time is granted to the " respondent. to consider the representation QL

-E "apetitioner.

Sd/-v Judge