AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Motilal B. Naik, J.—Petitioner, a student of M.B.A. Course studying in S.D.G.S. (Vasavi Institute of Management), Hindupur, is before this Court.
It is stated by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who is an Asthama patient, has sought transfer from the said Institute at Hindupur to S.K. University, Anantapur. Counsel further states that the petitioner being a resident of Anantapur, the climate in Hindupur which is about 65 kilo metres away from Anantapur is not suitable to him. The petitioner seems to have made a representation to respondents 1 and 2 on3-2-1995 and 6-4-1995. It is also stated that as per the resolution of B.O.M. meeting on 28-12-1993, the petitioner is also entitled for seeking transfer.
When the matter came up for admission today, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court intended directing notice before admission to the respondents, so that after hearing the respondents, an appropriate order could be passed at the admission stage itself. However, the counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed such issuance of notice to the respondents. On the contrary, the counsel insists that the writ petition to be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for transfer from Hindupur to Anantapur.
When this Court desired to know from the respondents the reasons for not acceding to the request of the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner did not wish the Court to know the reasons.
When the petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary for this Court to examine as to whether there is any violation of a provision or rule or any infringement of a right.
Insistence on the part of the Counsel for the petitioner to pass orders in a particular way, in my view, is not permissible. Courts, in all probability, cannot succumb to the pressure from the counsel and pass orders suiting to their interest.
This Court is a Constitutional Court and is not a mere post office to receive tapal and transmit it to the addressee. This Court is entitled to enquire into the cause for the denial of relief sought in the writ petition and thereafter grant relief according to the merits of the case.
In this view of the matter, this Court cannot assist the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.