1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION Nos.4621 OF 2013 AND 5035-5038 OF 2013 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:

1. Mohammad Ashfaq, Son of Hyder Ali, Aged about 25 years, Residing at No.102, Taj Towers, , – 1.

2. Wilbur Jovy Dalmieda, Son of James G Dalmieda, Aged about 24 years, Residing at Monkey Stand, New Road, 1 st Cross, Jaihind Lane, Althavar, Mangalore – 1.

3. Derrick Sharon, Son of Late Dileep Sudhakar, Aged about 24 years, Residing at behind State Bank of , Karnad, 2

Molky 574 144.

4. Hemanth, Son of Yellappa T Salian, Aged about 22 years, Residing at Beerottu Ashirvad Nivas, Kollur P.O. (via) , Mangalore Tal, Dakshina – 574 141.

5. Suman Gourish, Son of Late K. Sridhara, Aged about 26 years, Residing at 4/12 4A, Near Mahalingeshwara High School, Idoya, Surthkal. …PETITIONERS (By Shri. Cyril Prasad Pais , Advocate)

AND:

1. Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Abishek Patti, Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu 627 012, Represented by its Registrar, Dr. K.A.Mani Kumar.

2. Y. Gen Management Consulting Services An unit of Y. Gen Management Consulting Private Limited, No.1194, 27 th Main, J.P.Nagar 1 st Phase, 3

Bangalore – 560 078, Represented by its Director Mr. Deepeankar Chaudhary.

3. Mangalore Business School, Unit B Amar Alwa Trust, Prakrithi, Kadri Road, Mangalore – 575 003, Represented by its Chairman, Kripa Amar Alwa. …RESPONDENTS (Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 served and unrepresented Notice to respondent no.2 held sufficient vide order dated 24.4.2013)

***** These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent no.1 university to issue marks card to the petitioner/students for the third semester examination held in the month of January, 2012, within one week from the disposal of the writ petition.

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would state that the respondent – University has now agreed to announce the result, which was the complaint of the petitioners. 4

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, is doubtful about the assurance given by the respondent and hence seeks liberty to reopen these petitions, if the respondent does not announce the result.

The petitions stand closed with liberty to the petitioners to reopen these petitions if the respondent does not announce the result.

Sd/- JUDGE

nv