1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2754 OF 2008 Krupali Bhaskar Bidaye ..Petitioner. Vs. The University of Mumbai and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b M/s. Deepak Chitnis Chiparikar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. B.V. Phadnis for Respondents 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Mihir Desai for Respondent No.5. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.& R.S. MOHITE, J. 6th March, 2009. P.C. : 1. The dispute in the present case relates to the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner to the University Departments' Students' Council under Sub-Section 2(a)(v) of Section 40 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Counsel appearing for the University has on the instructions of the Vice Chancellor stated that without creating a precedent, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated before the Court, inasmuch as the Petitioner fulfills all the 2 conditions for eligibility prescribed in the aforesaid provision and since no other nomination was made in the category to which the Petitioner belongs, from the department of Civics and Politics, the Petitioner shall be nominated as a member of the Students' Council for the remaining part of the academic year 2008-09. In view of the fair approach which has been shown by the University, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that all the allegations contained in the Petition are not pressed. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has also stated before the Court that the Petitioner shall not question the election to the post of General Secretary of the Students' Council nor does the Petitioner desire to pursue any claim for election to the aforesaid post for the academic year 2008-09. 2. The Petitioner would, it is needless to add, be at liberty to make a representation to the Vice Chancellor in order to obviate any grievance in future in regard to the nomination process to the Students' Council. In the event that such a representation is made, we hope and trust that it will receive adequate attention of the authorities. 3 3. Since the Petition has been disposed of, in terms of the arrangement which has been arrived at in view of the statement made on behalf of the University, it is clarified that it has not become necessary for the Court to go into any of the allegations made in the Petition and none of the allegations would be regarded as having been admitted by any of the Respondents. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. R.S.MOHITE, J.