Full Judgment Text
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 12401/2019
DEEPAK AHUJA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondentss
Through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr.
Kaushik Ghosh and Ms. Manisha
Relia, Advs. for University of Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
C.M. Nos.50656-57/2019
1 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 12401/2019 & C.M. No.50655/2019
2 This is a writ petition whereby the following substantive relief
is sought:
“i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to
respondents for considering the candidature of the
petitioner for admission in three-year LIB course for the
academic session 2019-20 with respondent no.2/Faculty of
Law; and”
3 The petitioner’s case is that he sat in the entrance exam in
which he secured 123 out of total 388 marks. The petitioner avers that
at least in 26 questions, his marks have been wrongly noted and if
answers qua those questions are factored in, his marks would enhance
W.P.(C) 12401/2019 Pg. 1 of 3
to 253.
4 To be noted, the provisional result was declared by the
University of Delhi (in short ‘University’) on 09.07.2019. According
to the petitioner, final results were declared on 15.07.2019. It is the
petitioner’s case that a complaint was lodged with the University
before the declaration of the final result i.e. on 09.07.2019. As per the
petitioner, his complaint and/or grievance with regard to questions in
issue was disposed of only on 02.09.2019.
5 Mr. Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says
that had the petitioner’s complaint been disposed of in time, he could
have approached the Court earlier. Furthermore, Mr. Bhardwaj says
that order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the University on his complaint
is a non-speaking order.
6 I agree with Mr. Bhardwaj that there has been a delay on part of
the University in disposing of the complaint lodged by the petitioner
and that the order on his complaint, on the face of it, is a non-
speaking order. The impediment in the petitioner’s way in getting any
relief is his laches in approaching the Court. The first semester
commenced on 01.09.2019. By the time response is received from the
University as to how experts dealt with the petitioner’s complaint,
further time will elapse. While it was incumbent on the University to
act with due alacrity, it is equally expected of a litigant, who claims to
be aggrieved, to approach the Court at the earliest. The petitioner
failed in this regard.
7 Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ
petition is dismissed on the ground of laches.
W.P.(C) 12401/2019 Pg. 2 of 3
8 Before I conclude, I must emphasise that the University is
obliged to dispose of the complaints of the students at the earliest so
that if they are aggrieved by the outcome they can take recourse to an
appropriate remedy. Therefore, in future if a complaint is lodged, it
would pass orders on the same at the earliest, though, not later than
one week from the date of receipt of the complaint. The disposal of
the complaint will be via a speaking order so that the complainant
knows exactly the reason for the conclusion reached in the order.
8.1 The disposal of the complaint on 02.09.2019 seems odd when
the cut-off date for admissions was 31.08.2019 and first semester was
to commence on 01.09.2019. To those who are not accustomed to
bureaucratic delays and red-tapism, it would seem that the University
had adopted a stratagem to prevent the petitioner from reaching the
Court in time. The University, in future, will avoid such occurrence.
The order passed today will be placed before the Dean, Faculty of
Law.
9 Resultantly, interim application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2019
A
W.P.(C) 12401/2019 Pg. 3 of 3