logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 008 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi)
Case No : Writ Petition No. 200037 Of 2025 (EDN-EX)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
Parties : Lakshmikant Versus The Registrar, Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubballi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Gururaj Bhandari, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R3, Arunkumar Amargundappa, Mahantesh Patil, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 26-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC-K 7935,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to, issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents consider the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure-F dated 21.12.2024 consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the examination fees and write the upcoming examinations held from 20.01.2024.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 21.12.2024 and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the examination fees and to write upcoming examination tentatively scheduled to be commenced from 15.01.2026.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

          The petitioner has completed his SSLC as a regular candidate and thereafter, obtained PUC Marks Card from Open University on 14.07.2015. Based on the PUC Marks Card, the petitioner has obtained B.Com Degree from Gulbarga University on 29.11.2022. The petitioner paid fees to respondent No.2-College and accordingly, respondent No.1 announced the time table for the examinations. When the petitioner approached the respondents to pay the examination fee, the respondents have refused to accept the examination fee. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2024 with a request to accept examination fee, and permit him to appear for the examination tentatively commencing from 15.01.2026. The respondents have not considered the representation. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. Gururaj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing for Sri. Mahantesh Patil, for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents to accept the examination fees and permit the petitioner to appear for the examination tentatively scheduled to be commenced from 15.01.2026. He submits that the respondents have not passed any order on the representation vide Annexure-F submitted by the petitioner. Hence, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-F in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.206192/2015 disposed of on 04.10.2016 and W.P.No.31737/2024 disposed of on 09.12.2024. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondents would consider the representation vide Annexure-F, and would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner got admitted in respondent No.2-College. The respondent No.1 announced the tentative time table for examination. The petitioner approached the respondents to accept the examination fee and permit the petitioner to appear for the examinations tentatively commencing from 15.01.2026 by submitting the representation dated 21.12.2024 vide Annexure-F. The said representation was not considered by the respondents till day.

8. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Prasanna s/o Mallikarjun Balegowda vs. The Principal Seth Shankarlal Law College and Another in W.P.No.206192/2015 disposed of on 04.10.2016 and in Rakesh Shetty vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.31737/2024 disposed of on 09.12.2024.

9. When the representation is submitted by the petitioner, it is the legal duty of the respondents to consider the representation and to pass appropriate orders. Admittedly, in the instant case the respondents have not passed any orders on the representation at Annexure-F submitted by the petitioner.

10. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation vide Annexure-F in terms of orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.206192/2015 and W.P.No.31737/2024 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

          In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.No.2/2025 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.

 
  CDJLawJournal