W.P(C) No.10141/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No.10141/2009 % Date of Decision: 16.07.2009 Anand Engineering College …. Petitioner Through Mr.Prag Chawla, Advocate. Versus Union of India and Anr. …. Respondents Through Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. ORAL * Issue notice to the respondents. Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Jatan Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Mr.Jatan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that in view of compliance of order dated 20th May, 2009 whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid to the complainant Rama Gogia pursuant to the order dated 20th May, 2009 in Contempt Petition No.437/2008 and that other compliance has been done by the W.P(C) No.10141/2009 Page 2 of 3 petitioner, reply is not to be filed. The counsel for respondent No.1 says that no relief is prayed against the respondent No.1. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondent to grant extension of approval for the academic year 2009-2010 and for setting aside the letter dated 8th May, 2009 issued by respondent No.2 refusing to extend the approval for the academic year 2009-2010. The letter dated 8th May, 2009 refusing to extend the approval stipulates that the action for not extending the approval is on account of non compliance of the order of the High Court in contempt petition filed by a candidate and for non submission of compliance report to the respondent No.2 by 31st August, 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 20th May, 2009 has been complied and a copy of the cheque with the endorsement of the receipt of the cheque by the mother of the complainant Rama Gogia has been produced. The counsel for respondent No.2 does not refute this. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that the petitioner has also reaverred the other objection raised in the letter dated 8th May, 2009 since the compliance report had been submitted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the grounds on which the extension of approval was declined by the respondent No.2 do not survive. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that there is no other W.P(C) No.10141/2009 Page 3 of 3 ground for withholding the extension of approval by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. the respondent No.2 is directed to issue an appropriate letter/communication to the petitioner extending the approval of the petitioner for the academic year 2009-2010 forthwith. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications are also disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. July 16, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’