Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ruchit Ojha vs Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur on 2 March, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4990/2020
Ruchit Ojha S/o Shri Kapil Ojha, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near
Tapriya Bera, Outside Chandpole, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Principal, Lucky Institute Of Professional Studies, Kamala
Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nihar Jain
Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipesh Beniwal
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
02/03/2021
1. Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
University at the outset pointed out that the very same petitioner
(Ruchit Ojha) had earlier filed a writ petition being SBCWP
No.3944/2020 on 18.3.2020; when the matter was being
considered by the Court on 19.3.2020, learned counsel for the
petitioner withdrew the said writ petition without taking any
liberty.
2. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed through the
same counsel for the same relief.
3. It was argued that regardless of dismissal of earlier writ
petition, petitioner could secure an interim order from coordinate
Bench of this Court on 30.6.2020.
(Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:57:01 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-4990/2020]
4. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner having withdrawn
the earlier writ petition, without seeking any liberty from this
Court, cannot maintain a fresh writ petition, for the same cause of
action.
5. The record of SBCWP No.3944/2020 was summoned from
the office and upon comparison of the cause title, pleadings and
grievance raised, this Court is satisfied that both the petitions
involve identical controversy and have been filed practically for the
same relief.
6. On question being posed to Mr. Jain, he submitted that the
petitioner has very well disclosed the factum of filing the earlier
writ petition (SBCWP No.3944/2020) in para no.7 of the present
writ petition. It was contended that it was in the changed
circumstances, particularly because of notification dated
20.6.2020, the petitioner has chosen to prefer the present writ
petition.
7. Learned counsel tried to justify filing of the
subsequent/present petition by arguing that since the University
itself has decided to promote the students to next class, the
petitioner had preferred the writ petition in a bid to avail such
opportunity.
8. In considered opinion of this Court, the notification dated
20.6.2020 nowhere requires any application form to be filled-in by
the student.
9. The petitioner's right of submitting application form has
earlier been adjudicated and decided by this Court. The writ
petition was withdrawn when this Court was not inclined to grant
any indulgence to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:57:01 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-4990/2020]
10. In earlier writ petition, the petitioner had sought an interim
direction to allow him to sit in the examination of II year when
one paper was already over and petitioner had not even filled the
examination from.
11. In the facts of the present case filing of fresh petition is a
clear abuse of the process.
12. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed, however, without
any cost, considering that petitioner is a student.
13. The stay order dated 30.6.2020 stands vacated and the stay
application also dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J.
107-CPGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 02/03/2021 at 09:57:01 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)