IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. APPELLATE SIDE. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2943 OF 200 PETITION NO. 2943 OF 200 PETITION NO. 2943 OF 2006 Pawan K.Dabas .... Petitioner versus The University of Pune & anr. .. Respondent Shri J.K.Mistry with P.M.Havnur for the petitioner. Shri Girish Kulkarni for Respdt. CORAM; CORAM; CORAM; V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.G.PALSHIKAR & V.R.KINGAONKAR, V.R.KINGAONKAR, V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. JJ. JJ. DTAED: DTAED: DTAED: 28TH APRIL,2006 28TH APRIL,2006 28TH APRIL,2006. P.C. 1. The petitioner’s representation for accepting his examination form and issuing him the admission card was considered by the university as directed by this court earlier. The university has found it difficult to grant the prayers made by the petitioner. 2. The contention raised is that the impugned order in this petition is not a reasoned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor and reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjeev Sanjeev Sanjeev @ Bittoo, reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2080 @ Bittoo, reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2080 @ Bittoo, reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2080 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that quasi judicial authority should apply its mind and exercise its discretion in accordance with the law and should give reasons for reaching that decision. However, this decision of the Supreme Court is of no assistance to the petitioner because the Vice-Chancellor of the university decided the factual aspect as to whether the reasons raised by the students in submitting the application for admitting them for examination is genuine or not, and has not required to act as judicial or quasi judicial authority and there is therefore no question as to the Vice-Chancellor is required to give reasoning and the act is purely done for proper administration of the university and interference in such administration of the university at every possible stage would be unwarranted interference with the autonomous body. In such circumsances, we see no reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. xxx