HIGHCOURTOF JUEMGATURECHW^TnSQARHKBILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHRIS.R. NAYAK, CJ PETITLONER Writ Petition hto.1619 pf M06 Navin Kumar Swamlear S/o Shri Banshs La! Swamkar, ^jed about 20 years, occupation student, B.E.IInd Year, Electronlcs & Telecommunication, Chhatrapati Shivaji InsUtute of Technology, Durg (C.G), resident of Kharaia Road Dabhra, Tahsil Dabhra, DistrictJan^ir Champa (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattlsgarti, through it's Secretary Departmait of Higher Technksal Educatton D.K.S. BuBding R3!pur(C.Q.) 2. The Prineipal, Chhatrapati Shhaji InstUute of Technology, Shj^ji Nagar, Kolhapuri Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Chainnan, Chtatrapsrti SMvajl Institute of Technology, Shivaji Nagar, Kolhapuri Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 4. The Director, Department of Hiaher Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, Bairan Bazar, Fiaipur (C.G.) 5. Pt. Ravishanker Univerelty, Through its R^istrar, Pt. Ravishanker Unhwreity, Raipur (C.G.). Present: Shri Shaitendra Soni, leamed eounsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, leamed counsel for the State. Shri V.R. Thwari, leamed counsel for respondents 2 and 3. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 23" June, 2TO8) The peBfioner is presently a second yearstudent ofthe Course leadingto B.E. Degree in Electronics& TelecommunfeaBoro conduded '3^!^se^yssSt~SSG 2,- by the 2Iri respondedt, Chhatrapafi Shh^iji Institute^ Tecfanofa^y. D"(9 (C.G). The petttioner is seeking his transfer, to some other ireBtute to prosecute further studies in the above degree course. Therefore, the peUtioner applied to e 2rt respondent, the Princi(»t, ChhatrajaS Shtvaji Instltute of Technol<^y to grant him transfer and all othw certificates in order to facilitete him to joln some ottier InsUtute. The petitionercomplaining teat the 2 respwident refused to grant fean^er certificate and other certiftcates, has fitedthiswrtt paUUon prsftng for the followingretiefe: "In viewofthe factand groundsstated above thepaBBonere seek issue ofthe following relief(s):- 1. That this Hon'ble Court may Mndly be ptoased to fssuea wrtt in the nature of mandamus commandii^ Iha respondents authorities to produced the enUre record relaBng to peUBMier for issuance crf transfer certificate, charactsr certificate, no objection certificate and all other necessary ctocuments; 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the rsspondents to issue forthwith all necessary documente related to tte petitioner; 3. That thfs Hon'bte Court mayldndfy be(deassd toissue a writ in the nafcire ofmandamus dlrecBng flie respondwts no. 2 and 3 to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,OOQ/- to the petitioner; 4. That any other altemative virit or write, order or onters, direcUon or dlrections, though expedient and just may alsw please be issued* 2. This Court havii^ entertained the wrlt p^tlen wi 04-04-2006, issued noUce re-rule nisi. In response to the flotiee, responSaiits 2 and 3 have fited their rahim dsted 22-06-2006. In Para 2 oftha r^im.tte respondents 2 and 3 have statod that ttiey have no objection to gwe ihe •^y Transfer Certlflcate,Character CerUficato and other CertUicatea ralaUng to the educattonal quatfflcations of the petitioner. Wrth r^ard to Issuance of no objection certlficate, In para 3, it Is stated thus: "As far as the No Objection esriificate Is concwned, the answering respondents can only give ttieNo CT^ection Certfficate to the peUUoner only alter produdton Bf No ObjecUon Certificats by ttie pdltioner from the Director of Technical Education, and PandK Ravl Shankar Shukla Un'iversity, Raipur, because the petiUoner has besn adtnitled in the B.E. only aftsr counselirtg fiuni the merft tistof PET and on the eventofgivtng No Objectlon Gertificate to ttie petiUoner the seat occupiedby the petiBonerwin belyingiacanttar rest part of the degree course, hence it issubmitted thatas (ar as the Transfer Certificate, Character CerUicate and other Certificates relate to educatton qualiflcation of the peUUonCT, the answering respondents are ready togh/s the same at any moment when ttie peCBoner appeared before the CoBege, which is repeatedly being ashed to Bie prtMoner by the College authorities. Hance, the Instant writ pettfon Is misconceh^ed and the facls stated in the Instant writ petWon are incorrect, which dessrves to be dlsmissed with coste." 3. - The insistence of respondents 2 aml 3 to issue No OfcijeeUon Certificateon production of No Objection Certiflcate by the Director of Technlcal Education and Pandtt l^viShanker Shukla Unh?ersity, Ralpur, in the premise ofthe reasons stated by respondents 2 and 3 in para 3, could not be considered to be arbitrary or unreasonabte. Ifthe p^fUoner leaves the2 respondent-insfihiUon, the seat presently held by hira will go waste and fch.e2"'1 respoRdent-in^itufes" wQU'd suffer SnanciaUy fcr the rest of the degree course. It is trite that the peSUoner cannot join another insBtution without seektng permission of the Dirwtor of the Technical Education and Pandit RaviShanker Shukla University.Raipur. Looking from tftat angte also, ttie p^Sonw eMiiwt tave any objertion to seek No ObjecUon Csitificate from the Director of the Tachnteat ; Educatton and Pandlt RaviShanker Shulda Univw^ty, Raapur MKt produce the sametotheZ respondsntm Qrdertofacilitstehimtotetffi the required certlficates. tn that viswof the matter, the writ prtUwi is disposed of in terms of the undertaking groen by fce rwpondents 2 and 3 in para 2 of the return and subject to the patfUoner productng No ObjecUon Certificate issued by the Director of Technical EducaBon and Pandtt RaviShanker Shukla Universtty, Raipur. No coste.-_ - - Sd/- Chiei Justice ^