IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 136 of 2010 Ankit Thakur ……… Appellant. Versus University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun and another .………. Respondents. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocates for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 26.07.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The name of the appellant-Ankit Thakur was struck off from the rolls of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies by an order dated 27.02.2009. In order to assail the aforesaid order, the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 254 of 2010 on 05.03.2010. The order dated 27.02.2009 had been issued at the hands of the aforesaid University, on account of a murder having been committed at Mussoorie on 26.12.2008, wherein the appellant was allegedly involved. In fact, it is not a matter of dispute, that a charge sheet has been filed, with the appellant as an accuse, inter alia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the learned Single Judge, the primary contention at the hands of the appellant was, that the appellant being a juvenile, the alleged offence committed by him on 26.12.2008 cannot be a basis of any “disqualification”. In this behalf, Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Juvenile Act’) was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 19 of the aforesaid Juvenile Act is being extracted hereunder: “19. Removal of disqualification attaching to convictions – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. 2 (2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.” In spite of the aforesaid, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 06.07.2010, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Dissatisfied with the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 254 of 2010, the instant Special Appeal has been filed. 3. The solitary contention at the hands of the appellant during the course of hearing, was based on the protection envisaged under Section 19 of the Juvenile Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that at the present juncture, the appellant has not even been convicted. It is submitted, that he is merely an accused of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out, that there is every likelihood of the appellant being acquitted. Be that as it may, it is pointed out, that even if it is accepted for arguments sake, that the appellant is eventually convicted, still under Section 19 of the Juvenile Act no detrimental action can be taken against the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid conviction. Thus viewed, it is asserted, that there is no legitimate reason, whatsoever, for the University to have struck off the name of the appellant from its rolls. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents- University, we have also perused the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the University before the learned Single Judge. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents- University is, that the pendency of criminal prosecution against the appellant is not the basis of passing of the impugned order, even though a reference to the same has been made in the order dated 27.02.2009. Inviting our pointed attention to the last para of the impugned order, it is submitted, that the continuation of the appellant on the rolls of the University would have vitiated the academic atmosphere of the University. It is submitted, that the very presence of the appellant would 3 have adversely affected the discipline and the peaceful environment. It is also pointed out, that the continuation of the appellant on the rolls of the University would even have an adverse effect on the reputation of the University. In this behalf, learned counsel for the respondents-University has also pointed out the averments made in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-University. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant based on Section 19 of the Juvenile Act. In fact, in our considered view, the aforesaid provision does not even arise for consideration. We are satisfied, that the continuation of the appellant on the rolls of the University would have an adverse effect on the atmosphere of the University, on its discipline, as also to its reputation. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in up-holding the impugned order dated 27.02.2009, whereby the respondent-University had struck off the name of the appellant from its rolls. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Amit (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 26.07.2010 26.07.2010