1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.986 of 2011 Mother Teresa B.Ed., College, Rep. by its Correspondent, Smt. Indra Antony Mary, Varichikudi Via, Poovam Post, Karaikudi - 609 609. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirapalli - 620 024. 2.T.Rajini (R2 is impleaded as per order dated 02.03.2011 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 by KKSJ) : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass an order of the petitioner's representation, dated 11.12.2009 and the reminder, dated 12.01.2011 by issuing a duplicate certified copy of the documents listed in the Annexure hereto. For Petitioner :M/s.D.Geetha For R1 :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan ORDER The delay on the part of Bharathidasan University to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 11.12.2009, compelled them to file this Writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a recognised educational institution offering the course leading to bachelors degree in education. The second respondent was a student for the academic year 2005-2006. The relationship between the Management and the second respondent was not cordial. Though the certificates produced by the second respondent were returned, no acknowledgement was obtained from him. It appears that the second respondent misplaced his certificates. Subsequently, he filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.29114 of 2008 against the petitioner and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to take appropriate steps to furnish duplicate copies of the certificates. The petitioner thereafter approached the Bharathidasan University to issue duplicate copies of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 certificates. However, there was no follow up action and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Bharathidasan University submitted that the university regulations mandates that the application for providing duplicate copies of the certificates should be filed by the concerned candidate through the institution. According to the learned counsel, in case the petitioner obtains an application from the second respondent and forward the same to the university along with requisite fee, the same would be considered on merits and as per law. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is only on account of the failure on the part of the first respondent university to provide duplicate certificates. Since there was a direction in W.P.No.29114 of 2008, the petitioner was bound to make an application before the University and to provide the duplicate copies of the certificates to the second respondent. 6. Even though notice was served, the second respondent has not entered appearance. 7. Therefore, on a careful consideration, I am of the view that the issue requires emergent consideration by the University. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to obtain an application from the second respondent for the purpose of issuing duplicate copies of the certificates and forward the same to the University and in the event of making any such application along with requisite fee, the University is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with the University Regulations, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirapalli - 620 024. +1cc to M/s.D.Geetha, Advocate Sr.No.10897 pm akm/16.03.11 /2p-3c/ W.P.(MD)No.986 of 2011 02.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/