AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to enquire into the matter of fraudulent submission of data by Respondent no. 6 in its self study report.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to take punitive actions against DIT University and the Government officials involved in case if the Respondent University is found guilty in the afore prayed enquiry.
III. Issue a writ, order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Central / State government set a mechanism and forum where such fraudulent activities / practices could be complained against.
IV. Issue a direction in the nature of Mandamus to set up an SIT to make an inquiry against the fraud committed by the Officials of Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Organizations and thereafter take appropriate actions against them.
V. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the State / Central Government to re-examine the accreditations and national ranking that the Respondent no. 3 and 4 have granted to the Universities in the past five years.”
The petitioner has averred that one Advocate A.K. Sharma had made a complaint in relation to the DIT University, which was forwarded to the University Grants Commission (for short the ‘UGC’) for consideration.
It is further stated that the UGC, in turn, forwarded the said complaint to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (for short the ‘NAAC’) on 16.07.2021.
The petitioner discloses that NAAC has informed Mr. A.K. Sharma on 31.08.2021 that his complaint against the DIT University alleging submission of false data in its self-study report stands closed.
The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the said stand taken by the NAAC. Pertinently, Mr. A.K. Sharma has not approached the Court. Firstly, we have doubts about the petitioner’s locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Secondly, the petitioner’s relief is directed against respondent No. 3, which is situated at Bangalore, Karnataka.
We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction. The present writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.