IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH w.P.(C) No. 2228 /2008 Jay Prakash Hariharno, S/o. Anil Kumar Hariharno, aged about 19 years, R/o. Block B-1, 24 - quarter, Police Training School, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : 1. / Anjanies Institute of Engineering & Management, A Divisionlof Shaktimata Educational Society Registration No. C.G. 1421, Behind Administrative Block, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (C.G.). Through:Center Head Hitesh Tarkeshwar Sharma, Resident of Upadhyay-nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The Institution of Engineers (India), ,» 2. 8, Gokhle Road, Kolkata, 700020 AT BILASPUR VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDAMUS, AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS ]a. “ ’”4‘a, a‘ N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c2 No. 2228 OF 2008 g 2/, Petitioner Jay Prakash Hariharno Versus Resgondents Anjanies Institute of Engineering & Management and another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION‘OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihbtri, J.) ‘ Present :- Shri Samir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the respondent No.2 ORDER tORAL! (Passed on 28‘ day of August, 2010) 1. By this petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the first ‘semester examination, which was to be held on.June, 2008. Further, refund of amount of Rs. 83,145/— which he has paid as fee and further a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was admitted to the course V of M.E. (4 YDC) by the respondent No.1/institute. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 83,145/- on several heads as required before holding of the examination in June, 2008. The petitioner‘made an application to the respondent No.1fmstiitute, the same was neither accepted nor admission card was issued to the petitioner. Thus, this petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 had already closed its institution in the year 2009 4. 5. 6. 2 3p and as such the respondent No.2 is competent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination and issue admit card. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no examination could be conducted as no registration number was issued by the respondent No.2 as is evident from Annexure P-16. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 is that the institution of Engineers (lndia) categorically submits that the respondent No.1/institute was never registered or affiliated to the respondent No.2 and as such the respondent No.2 is not responsible in any way, either for admission or for examination of the first semester course. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the documents appended thereto, it is evident that letter dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure P—16) issued by one Mr. Hitesh to the father of the petitioner clearly indicates that registration number was never granted by the Institution of Engineers (lndia), Kolkata. lt appears that the petitioner was mislead by the respondent No.1v and having accepted the version of the respondent No.1, the petitioner deposited the fee and other requisite amount. dent No.1 is not in existence 7. Be that as it may, since the respon and further no attempt has been made by the petitioner to‘amend the address of the respondent No. 1 and to serve notice, no relief can be granted vis-a-vis respondent No.1. So far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, the respondent No.2 cannot be held liable as respondent No. 2 has. never granted any \ recommendation or affiliationvto the respondent No.1 institute. \\\ a;es )/51 “ Having regard to the facts situation of the case, wherein it appears that the father of the petitioner, without verifying the facts of the institute/respondent No.1 has got admitted the petitioner and paid fees to the respondent No.1/institute, cannot be verified in the writ petition as they are disputed question of facts. Thus, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. However, Iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if so advised, under the provisions of law against the respondent N01. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ”IA, Sd/—