1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA WRIT APPEAL No.2921 OF 2013 (EDN) BETWEEN: Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayush, Ayush Bhawan, B-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110 023, Reptd. By its Secretary. APPELLANT (By Sri R. Veerendra Sharma, CGC) AND : 1. Shri Krishnarajendra Charitable Trust’s Indian Institute of Ayurvedic Medicine & Research Bangalore Palace Compound, Bangalore Road, Opp. Darga, Bangalore-560 006. Represented by its Secretary- L.K.Raju, S/o late B.V.Muniraju, R/o Bangalore. 2. Afreen Siddiqui, 18 years, S/o Muntazim Ahmed Siddiqui. 3. Nongmaithem Priyanka, 18 years, S/o N.Krishnamohan. 4. K.M.Simhadri, 19 years, S/o Muralidharan.K.A. 2 5. K.M.Alpana Yada, 2 years, S/o Ramjeet Yadav. 6. Manchi Rajashekar, 19 years, S/o Manchi Siddiramulu. 7. Dheerendra Yadav, 18 years, S/o Ramendra Singh, 8. Palki Boruah, 19 years, S/o Bhaba Kanta Boruah, 9. Merina Ahmed, 19 years, D/o Moni Ruddin Ahmed, 10. Rameez Raja, 21 years, S/o Mukhtyar Hussain, 11. Rabindra Kumar Yadav, 23 years, S/o Biltu Ray Yadav, 12. Zeeshan Alam, 22 years, S/o Momin Khan, 13. Arun Kumar, 18 years, S/o Sukkhan Singh, 14. Mohammad Monish, 19 years, S/o Mohammed Irfan, 15. Abhishek Soni, 22 years, S/o Ramji Seth, 16. Muddnagari Sriteja, 19 years, S/o Muddhnagari Yadagiri, 17. Shaik Shamuna Begum, 19 years, D/o Shaik Mohammad Rafi, 18. Rakam Shirishan, 19 years, S/o Rakam Mallesh, 3 19. Yamini Sindhra.T, 18 years, D/o T. Gopi Krishna, 20. Vanikrishna.V, 18 years, D/o Vasu.V, 21. Lavanya Lal.L. 18 years, S/o S. Lal Saji, 22. Madhuri B.S. 19 years, D/o Sivilan Kumaran, 23. Uzam Farheen, 19 years, S/o Hafiz Farooqi, 24. Haleema Sadiya, 19 years, D/o Fayaz Baig, 25. Usha.K. 20 years, D/o T.L.Krishnaraju, 26. Adith.B.R. 21 years, S/o M. Bhuvanendran Nair, 27. Sumesh.K. 18 years, S/o K.Sudhakaran Nair. 28. Adithya Raj, K.R. 21 years, S/o Rajappan.K., 29. Kosar Jahan, 22 years, S/o Shareefan Jahan, 30. Priyanka Mishra, 19 years, D/o Trilok Chandra Mishra, 31. Priyanka Verman, 20 years, D/o Ram Vilash Verma, 32. Sejal Patel, 20 years, D/o Kanthi Patel, 4 33. Dinesh Kumar, 20 years, S/o Harpal Singh, 34. Ronnie Lyngdoh, 24 years, D/o James V. Dhkar, 35. Anuradha Paudwal, 21 years, D/o Vinod Kumar, 36. Joshi Gautham Bhai, 18 years, D/o Kantibhai K. Joshi, 37. Alok Kumar, 20 years, S/o Brajesh Kumar, 38. Avneesh Kumar, 21 years, S/o Dalchand, 39. Abhay Singh, 19 years, S/o Om Prakash Singh, 40. Deepshree Burman, 19 years, D/o Mohanlal Burman, 41. Jehirul Islam, 19 years, S/o Azmol Hoque, 42. Md.Raheber Khan, 19 years, S/o Md. Intesar Uddin Khan, 43. Rahul Tiwari, 19 years, S/o Kapildev Tiwari, 44. Ajith R, 19 years, S/o Radhakrishnan.R, 45. Blessy V. Mathew, 20 years, D/o Mathew Varghese, 46. Nice Paul, 19 years, S/o Paul Mathew, 2-46 are all students of I years BAMS Course in the 1 st petitioner college. 5 2. Central Council of Indian Medicine, 61-65, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058, Represented by its Director. 3. M/s Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION Nos.47458/2012 & 8490-8434/2013 DATED 15/02/2013 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY N.K.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- J U D G M E N T Though this matter is listed for orders, it is taken for final disposal and is being disposed of by this Judgment. 2. This appeal has been filed on 17.04.2013. Office has raised as many as 17 objections. Inspite of granting statutory period of more than six weeks, office objections are not removed. Thereafter, it was posted on 27.08.2013 before the Registrar (Judicial) before whom, when the case was called out, the Appellant was 6 absent. Again two weeks’ time was granted to comply with the office objections. From 18.04.2013 till date no sincere efforts are made to remove the office objections. It shows that neither the appellant nor its counsel is diligent in prosecuting the appeal. 2. However, in the interest of justice, we have perused the order dated 15.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.47458/2012 & 8490- 8534/2013. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed, quashing the order impugned at Annexure-A to writ petition and remitting the matter to the 1 st respondent/appellant herein for consideration of the same in accordance with law, and to hear the institution, if need be. The petitions are regarding admissions to the academic year 2012-2013. Since the academic year is completed, nothing more survives for consideration. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed for not 7 removing the office objections and also on merits. Ordered accordingly. SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE kcm .