^ c^ 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR CHHAHISGARH WRIT PETITION (Cl N0. £83^ /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS: )\y Preeti Rani, aged 23 years, D/o Shri Manesh Narayan Singh, Resident of A- ^ 14/A, Central Avenue, Smriti Nagar Bhilai, District - Durg -(Chhattisgarh), .:VERSUS: 1. ' C.G Swami Vivekanand Techinical University, Through the Vice Chancellor, North Park Avenue, Sector-8 Bhilai District - Durg .^^°^^. (Chhatttegarh) ^^....•^M^ ^'..•-;A..S:C'U->">' ..••^^.•^\.-- 2. ^ Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering & •^ ''>-"• .^ ., e.^' Technology, Through the Principai, Junwani Road, Bhiiai, District - Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION (Sl. OR ORDER (S) ,—>.JaSS^SffsK-efis ^N iy HIGH COURTOF CHHATriSGARH : Bll.AK'UR WRIT PJETITION (CT No. 2336 of2011_ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Preeti Rani VERSUS C.G. Swami Vivekanand Technical Unh/ersity & Anottssr WRIT PETITION (0 No. 2368 of 2011 PET1TIONER : Amit Kumar Shirekar VERSUS RESPONDENTS ChhatUsgarh Swami Vwekanand Technical University & Othere WRIT PETITION (0 No. 2441 of 2011. PETITIONER : Devesh Datdiya VERSUS RESPONDENTS Ghhaffisgarh Swamt Viveteanand Technical Unhfersity & Another AND WRrr PETITIQN (C) No,2431 (rf.20t1 PETITIONER : Japa Jyothi Reddy VERSUS RESPONDENTS ChhatUsgarh Swami Vivekanand Technicat University & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITyTIQNOF INDIA Pressnt: SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J, Shri C.J.K. Rao, Shri Anup Majumdar, Shri Ravindra Agrawaf & Shri Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent-University. 'm^i»^'#w*»^*ivf^*vvt1TNtV<iiif***tft^ ORDERtORAL) g»assedon 11th day of May, 2011) 1. Learned counsef appearing for fte jaetitionere submit fcat e ordinance, as pointed out by fte leamedcounsel fbr tte respondent-Univereify has still notcome into force and, as such, the petitionars may be permltted to make an applicafion to the University to consider the case of Uie petitioners, in accordance with law. lrBIBj.sfi:Sl.EiSM ^ T's-.."^ 36 -y ^ -.•^f^ Arun/ Gcwri On the other hand, learned counsel appearing tor ttie respondent- University submfts that though the ordinance has already come into foree, but in view of the statement made by the petiUoners ttiat the same has not been nofifled as required under the law, if the appltcafion is made, the same may be considered, in accordance witti Isw. In view ofthe fact thsit the petitioners seek permlssionto wiftdraw these petitions to make application, the author'ities may consider the same in accordance with law. 1 do not think ttiat the above stated observation wtil come in the way of the authorities to consider the application of the petitioners, in accordance wlth the prevailing taw. In view of the above, the petitions stend dlspt^ed of. However, Mberty is reserved to the petitionere to take^appropriate steps, if soadvised. Satts 3udS®