1 ASWP1168.11 srp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2011 Dhananjay Ashtekar ... Petitioner Vs 1. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.K. Pandey i/b Sanjeev Punalekar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM : MOHIT SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. MONDAY, 07TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The petitioner is an under-trial prisoner in connection with a criminal case where charge-sheet is filed in the Sessions Court at Margao and the trial is in progress. 2. At the time of arrest, the petitioner was studying for the final year i.e. IVth year Engineering through respondent No.3 college, affiliated to respondent No.2 university. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to appear for three papers for the previous years under the ATKT provisions. The petitioner, being desirous of appearing for 2 ASWP1168.11 the ATKT examination in May 2011, the petitioner’s father approached respondent No.2-college, but the respondent No.2-college informed the petitioner’s father that the examination forms will be accepted from 24th January, 2011 to 8th February, 2011 and at the same time, the petitioner’s father was also informed by respondent No.2- college orally that examination form will be accepted only after NOC is issued by the jail authorities for accepting the examination form. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for acceptance of the examination forms, no NOC of the jail authorities would be required because the question of permission to be obtained from the jail authorities would arise when the petitioner is to actually appear at the examination. It is submitted that the petitioner may, before the examination, apply to the Sessions Court for bail and the Sessions Court may grant bail to the petitioner, but if in the meantime the examination form is not accepted by the university, the petitioner will not be able to appear at the examination even if he is released on bail or is acquitted by the Sessions Court at the trial. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that since the jail is in Goa, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 5. None appears for respondent no.2-university or respondent no. 3-college, though served, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner who also undertakes that affidavit of service will be filed 3 ASWP1168.11 within one week from today. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that since the examination is in May 2011 and, if in the meantime, the petitioner is acquitted at the trial or the petitioner is granted bail by the Sessions Court, the petitioner will not be able to appear at the examination only on the ground that his examination form was not accepted by the university within the time schedule for acceptance of the examination forms. Of course, if the petitioner continues to be an under-trial prisoner till May 2011, it will be for the petitioner to move the concerned Court/authority for permission to appear at the examination and as and when such application is made, the application will be considered by the appropriate Court/authority on its own merits without being influenced by this order under which all that this Court directs is that respondent no.3-college shall accept the petitioner’s examination form and forward the same to the respondent no.2-Shivaji University which will, in turn, accept the examination form. It is again clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the question whether the petitioner would be entitled to appear at the May 2011 examination and it will be for the concerned Sessions Court/authority to decide the application for permission on its own merits. 7. As regards the preliminary contention about territorial jurisdiction, since the petitioner is seeking relief against respondent no.2-university and respondent no.3-college, both of which are in 4 ASWP1168.11 Kolhapur District, we see no impediment to this Court entertaining the present petition. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Associate. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.