1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 918 of 2010 ( Prashant s/o Ashokkumar Gupta ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED :- 7 th APRIL, 2010 1. Heard Mr. N.P. Lambat, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.1, Mr. Abhay Sambre, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. V.R. Choudhary, the learned Advocates for the respondent No.3. 2. The question which falls for our consideration is whether the action of respondent No.3 of refusal to grant registration of the petitioner for 4th Semester examination, which is scheduled to take place on 21st April, 2010 is sustainable in law or not. 3. We have considered rival contentions canvassed by the learned Advocates for the parties. 4. The following facts are brought on record :- As per the Notice for Registration Second Term of Academic Year 2009-2010, the students were required to register 2 themselves for the 3rd Semester as per the procedure stipulated in Clauses 1 and 2 of the said notice, reads thus :- “1. Provisional registration of 2nd Semester (Old), 4th (New & Old) and 8th Semester students for various courses will take place on Monday dated 14th December, 2009 from 12.00 to 2.00 P.M. & 3.00 to 5.00 P.M. in respective Counselor's sections. 2. Provisional registration of 4th New (GG series) Semester of various courses will take place on Monday 14th December 2009 from 12.00 to 2.00 P.M. & 3.00 to 5.00 P.M. and from 15 th to 18 th December 2009 (with late fee of Rs.50/- per day), from 3.00 to 5.00 P.M. in respective counselor's sections.” 5. Clause viii of Academic Regulations for Bachelor's Degree Programme reads thus - “A student seeking admission to semester other than the first shall be permitted by the Associate Dean/Principal on payment of a late fee of Rs.50/- (Rs. Fifty only) per day upto a period of five working days from and including the day notified for registration. No registration shall be permitted on the expiry of this period. The amount of fine so collected shall be credited to the students Aid Fund.” 6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner 3 wanted to register for 4th Semester and for the first time approached the authorities for registration on 19-12-2009 i.e. after expiry of the period for registration mentioned in the Notice for Registration dated 8/12/2009. The reason given by the petitioner for not approaching the authorities within the stipulated period mentioned in the Notice for Registration is illness. 7. The question is whether in view of the Clauses 1 and 2 of the Notice of Registration coupled with the Clause viii of the Academic Regulations for Bachelor's Degree Programme, the petitioner is entitled to get the registration after expiry of period mentioned in the Notice for Registration. 8. The language used in Clause viii of the Academic Regulations for Bachelor's Degree Programme is of mandatory nature and contemplates that the students seeking admission to semester other than the first Semester shall be permitted by the Associate Dean or Principal on payment of late fee of Rs.50/- per day upto a period of five working days from and including the day notified for registration. No registration shall be permitted on the expiry of that period. It is evident that from 14th December, 2009 with late fee the petitioner would have been permitted to register himself within a period of five days. However, on the expiry of 4 fifth day, question of entertaining the application for registration in view of Clause viii of the Academic Regulations for Bachelor's Degree Programme by the competent authority does not arise. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not approach the authorities on or before 18th December, 2009 for registration. Hence, the action of respondent No.3 refusing to grant registration to the petitioner is consistent with the regulations as well as the stipulation in the Notice of Registration. 9. Hence no case is made out. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE adgokar