1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2559 OF 2009 Asif Iqbal Gondalwala ..Petitioner V/s. University of Mumbai & ors ..Respondents Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b.M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.R.A.Rodrigues, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 Mr.S.G.Talekar, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by a student, who is studying in respondent No.2  institution. He was prosecuting a Course known as MMS (Master of Management Studies). There was an agitation in institute with 2 regard to the insufficient facilities provided to the students. It is alleged by the student that the Management was under the impression that he is one of the leaders of the students, who resorted to agitation. It is further alleged by him that as a result of this, he was, in fact, called by respondent No.4, the Director of Institution and was given a threat that if he does not withdraw his complaint, she will see that he fails. It is his contention that he had appeared for the examination and after the result was declared it was found that he has scored less number of marks than he was expecting to score. He, therefore, seeks moderation only in respect of the subject in which he scored less number of marks and it is also his contention that he had, in fact, failed in the subject Entrepreneurship Management. He had also appeared for IInd year Semister Course MMS for the Academic Year 2008-09. Although, in fact, he had failed, it is alleged that some ten 3 grace marks were given to him, as a result of which he was declared as having passed the said examination. It is his contention that he has, in fact, scored more number of marks than what have been assigned to him during the course of the valuation. He, therefore, seeks a direction from the Court that the result dated 20th July, 2009, be set aside and a fresh result be declared and if fresh marksheet be issued in his favour. He restricts his prayer in respect of the subject 'Entrepreneurship Management' only. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner had in fact failed in the said subject and he could have been given only three grace marks under Ordinance Number 5042. He submits that in order that the petitioner should be declared as having been passed, deliberately ten grace marks have been given to the petitioner. 4 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was a deliberate act on the part of respondent No.4 and that would affect the further career of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Management to give ten grace marks to the petitioner. He submits that if Ordinance No.5042 is read carefully, it would be clear that the respondents are entitled to give ten grace marks to the petitioner. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. After having gone through the said Ordinance carefully it is clear that in no case ten grace marks can be assigned to a student. In the circumstances, we do find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that deliberately ten grace marks were given to the petitioner in order to deprive him of seeking moderation, of the paper Entrepreneurship Management. The 5 learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Resolution dated 16th May, 2009, passed by the respondent No.3. After having gone through, it is apparent that the said Resolution is not in consonance with Ordinance No.5041, which allows only three grace marks to the student. Instead of going into the question as to whether this was done deliberatly or not, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to apply for the moderation of the paper. If it is found that the petitioner is eligible as per the Ordinance to seek such moderation in respect of the paper Entrepreneurship Management, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with Ordinance No. 5046 pertaining to moderation. It is further made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to grace marks as per the Ordinance No.5042 and taking into consideration those marks, as can be assigned under the Ordinance 6 No.5042, it should be seen as to whether the petitioner is entitled to moderation or not. 5. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)