1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4311 OF 2010 1. Sampat s/o Bhagaji Bondre, Age 45 years, Occ. Service, R/o Siblapur, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 2. Dnyandeo s/o Tukaram Ghule, Age 49 years, Occ. Service, R/o Tisgaon, (Pravara), Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The University of Pune, Ganesh Khind, Pune 411 007 through its Registrar ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri A.R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 19th July, 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states on instructions that the petitioners do not press for the relief prayed for at prayer clause BB to the petition i.e. of striking down Statute No.397 framed by the respondent No.2 Pune University. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The other relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the condition imposed by the University of Pune for registering the name of registered graduates for preparing electrol roll of registered graduate by annexing the degree certificate (convocation). The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to enrol the petitioner and several other graduates for preparing the eletrol roll of registered graduates who are annexed with the registered form the mark sheet and passing certificate issued by the University of Pune. 3 4. Statute 397 permits a person desirous of getting his name registered to submit either ( (i) parchment of his degree, (ii) a certificate from the Registrar of the University conferring the degree to the effect that he has been admitted to the degree or (iii) the calendar or other authorised publication of the University concerned. Contrary to the said Statute, the respondent University issued communication calling upon the graduates desirous of registering their names to submit only degree certificate (convocation copy) duly attested. Mr. A.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent University states on instructions that the respondent University would not insist on production of the degree certificate as evidence for registering the names of the desirous graduates, but would permit the production of such evidence as is contemplated under Statute 397. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, the grievance of the petitioner stands fully addressed to and no further grievance survives for consideration. 5. We, therefore, accept the statement made by Shri Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent University that the University would permit the production of evidence as is contemplated in Statute 397 and would not insist on the production of the attested copy of degree certificate. 4 6. We, therefore, make rule absolute in terms of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent University. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)