in the high court of delhi at new ... - indian … manankumarmishra@ ... of delhi was decided much...
Post on 25-Mar-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA
S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063 ………PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. Bar Council of India,
Through its Chairman,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 002
E-mail ID: info@barcouncilofindia.org
email: manankumarmishra@gmail.com
3. University of Delhi
Through The Vice Chancellor
Maurice Nagar,Delhi
E-mail ID: vc@du.ac.in
4. Faculty of Law,
Through its Dean,
University of Delhi,
Maurice Nagar,Delhi
E-mail ID: lawfaculty@gmail.com
…RESPONDENTS
IN THE MATTER OF:
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CLAUSE 5 A OF SCHEDULE
III OF RULES OF LEGAL EDUCATION 2008 AS ENACTED BY
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA UNDER SECTIONS 7(1)(h) AND (i),
24(1)(c)(iii), AND (iiia), 49(1)(af),(ag), AND (d) OF THE
ADVOCATES ACT, 1961;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED
TO THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
WRIT PETITION IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC INTREST
LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA SEEKING INDULGENCE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE MANDAMUS AND/OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION/ORDER
THEREBY DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO ADMIT 2310
STUDENTS IN LAW FACULTY, DELHI UNIVERSITY
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice
And His Companion Judges
Delhi High Court,New Delhi
Most Respectfully Showeth :
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER IS AS UDNER:
1. That the Petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India and is invoking
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the public
interest as he does not have any personal interest involve in the
present litigation. It is stated that the present petition is not guided
by self gain or for gain to any other person/Institution/Body. It is
stated that the Petitioner has no motive other than of Public Interest
in filing the present Writ Petition.
2. That the Petitioner has come to know about the facts stated in the
present petition after reading and watching news in media and also
through information available on Television, newspapers, internet
etc. The Petitioner has filed representations in this regard, however
the Respondents are not responding.
3. That the present Writ Petition has been filed for the benefit of large
number of citizens who have suffered due to wrong policy of
admissions adopted by the Colleges affiliated with the Respondent
No.3. It is humbly submitted that all such persons are not able to
approach this Hon’ble Court to seek the relief claimed in the
present petition, as most of them are students. That the present
petition, as per the knowledge of the Petitioner shall not adversely
affect any person/body/Institution.
4. That the Petitioner is a law graduate from Campus Law Center,
Delhi University and Lawyer/Advocate by profession having great
interest in the Social Issues. It is stated that the Petitioner has the
means to pay the cost, if any, imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
5. That before filing the present Petition, the Petitioner filed
representations with the Respondents through E-mails, however has
not received any response from Respondents. The representation
was mailed on 17.05.2017. Copies thereof is annexed as
ANNEXURE P-1 (Colly).
6. That the Petitioner has previously filed a Public Interest Litigation
bearing petition no. W.P (C) 7871/2016 and W.P (C) 4581/2017,
both are pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court.
7. That the Respondent No.1 is engaged in bringing world class
opportunities of higher education and research to the student of
India and is engaged in formulating the National Policy on
Education and to ensure that it is implemented in letter and spirit
8. That the Respondent No.2 is a statutory body created by Parliament
to regulate and represent the Indian bar. It performs the regulatory
function by prescribing standards of professional conduct and
etiquette and by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the bar. It
also sets standards for legal education and grants recognition to
Universities whose degree in law will serve as qualification for
enrolment as an advocate.
9. That the Respondent No.3 is central university financed by public
funds, the Respondent No.4, Faculty of Law has been a leader in
the field of legal education in India since its inception in 1924 and
continues to be so till date. With the demand for increase in the
number of students to be admitted in the Law Faculty, Law Centre-
I was established in 1970, Law Centre-II in 1971, and Campus Law
Centre in 1975.
10. That the Petitioner was shocked to read a News item on 17.05.2017
in Indian Express news paper that the Respondent No.2, has
imposed a condition this year that the Respondent No. 4, Law
Faculty cannot admit more than 1,440 students in all its three
centres though in all previous years the Law Faculty had been
admitting 2310 students. A copy of the news downloaded from
internet is annexed as ANNEXURE P-2.
11. That as per information available on the Website of Respondent
No.3 has invited applications from eligible candidates to fill 126
vacant positions in Respondent No.4, Law faculty, a copy of
information available on website is annexed as ANNEXURE P-3.
12. That the Respondent No.2 may impose condition to decrease
strength of each law center of Respondent No.4 by invoking
provisions contained in clause 5A of Schedule III of the Legal
Education Rules,2008, a copy of Legal Education Rules,2008 is
annexed as ANNEXURE P-4. The clause 5 A reads as under:-
“5A. Size of a section : The Inspection Committee may
approve for admission in each of the section of a class for not more
than 60 students and may allow a minimum of two sections in each
class but not more than five sections in one class (such as First Year
or Second Year or Third Year, etc) as the case may be unless there
is any exceptional reason for granting more sections in a Class,
such a reason has to be specified by the inspection Committee.”
.
13. That the provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule III of the Legal
Education Rules,2008, herein after refered to as “the impugned
clause”, are wrongly applied in present case as the strength of
permissible admissions in each centre of Law Faculty, University
of Delhi was decided much prior to the enactment of the Legal
Education Rules, 2008. The provisions of clause 5 A of Schedule
III of the Legal Education Rules,2008 are infringing fundamental
rights of citizens seeking admission in Respondent No.4, hence are
assailed as unconstitutional in present petition.
14. That the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public funded educational
institutions receiving grants from University Grants Commission
and by reducing number of admissions the public money is not put
on optimum use.The objective of establishing public funded
educational institutions is to provide an opportunity for higher
education to a large number of students. It is worthwhile to note
here that spread of Legal Education is need of the hour and is a
pious duty of the State.
15. That a large number of student shall suffer if the number of
permissible admissions in LL.B. course at the Respondent No. 4 are
decreased and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to
have higher education of their choice.
16. The funds provided to the Delhi University from the money
collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to
optimum use. The same infrastructure of Law Faculty had been
catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then it is not
understandable to decrease the number of admissions.
17. That as a large number of students aspire to attain their education
from the Respondent No.3 and 4 and their right has been tried to be
curtailed by decreasing number of admissions in the Respondent
No. 4, the petitioner immediately on 17.05.2017 sent a
representation to the Respondents, however till date they have not
responded.
18. That the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court is sought to issue
appropriate writ, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-
GROUNDS.
A. Because the impugned Clause is ultra virus to the fundamental
rights as enshrined in Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
B. Because the impugned Clause infringes citizen’s Right to
Education, it is humbly submitted that to attain higher education is
part of Right to Life, thus the impugned Clause is violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the restriction placed by the
impugned clause to admit only upto 300 students in a law College
is totally unreasonable and violates Constitution of India.
C. Because the Students/citizens have a fundamental right to have
equal opportunity to achieve higher education and to study course
of their choice and the restriction placed by the impugned clause
does not have any intelligible diffrentia, thus is totally
unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary.
D. Because the restriction placed by the impugned clause is neither in
the nature of professional standardization nor in the nature of
technical standardization, thus the same is un-constitutional and
ultra virus.
E. Because the impugned Clause is violating the parent Act i.e. the
Advocates Act,1961. It is submitted that Section 7(h) and 7(i) of the
Advocate Act 1961 mandates promotion of legal education and to
lay down standards of such education and recognition of
University. The relevant section 7(h) and 7(i) are reproduced as
under:
S-7 (h)- “To promote legal education and to lay down
standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in
India, imparting such education and the State Bar Councils”;
S- 7 (i) “To recognize Universities whose degree in law shall
be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that
purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar
Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such
directions as it may give in this behalf”;
The aforesaid provisions seek promotion of Legal Education,
thus by putting restriction to admit students upto permitted strength
the objective to promote legal education defeats. It is pertinent to
note here that none of the provisions of the enabling law Advocate
Act 1961 provides such a limitation on the number of admissible
students in a center of legal education.
F. Because the impugned clause is beyond the scope of rule
makinpower entrusted by the Advocates Act 1961.
G. Because the impugned Clause infringes the Public Policy as well as
Educational Policy, as these envisage education and equal
opportunity at all age levels and “at the pace suited to them”, the
same cannot be restricted by a rule making body to the detriment of
and without the backup/ express provision provided by the
Statutory laws. The role of Bar Council of India is to ensure
minimum infrastructural requirement which includes building
infrastructure like number of class rooms, availability of teachers,
library facilities etc., however the strength of admissible students
must be exclusive domain of concerned institution.
H. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to
1440, the Respondents are infringing fundamental rights of students
aspiring to attain admission in the Respondent No.4 to study LL.B.
It is submitted action of reducing admissible students violates Right
to life as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. The
said action also defeats basic principles of the Constitution of India.
I. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440
defeats the objective of establishing the Respondent No.3 and 4.
J. Because reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to 1440
is arbitrary and discriminatory and amounts to wastage of public
money. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 and 4 are public
funded educational institutions receiving grants from University
Grants Commission and by reducing number of admissions the
public money is not put on optimum use.The objective of
establishing public funded educational institutions is to provide an
opportunity for higher education to a large number of students. It is
worthwhile to note here that spread of Legal Education is need of
the hour and is a pious duty of the State.
K. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to
1440 in the Respondent No. 4, a large number of student shall
suffer and it will infringe their legal and Fundamental right to have
higher education of their choice.
L. Because the funds provided to the Respondent No. 3 and 4 from the
money collected from Tax payer, thus it is necessary that it is put to
optimum use. The same infrastructure of Respondent No. 4 had
been catering 2310 students for more than four decades, then by
reducing number of admissions the infrastructure shall be wasted.
M. Because there are only a few institutions which offer 3 year LL.B.
Course and among them the Respondent No. 4 is the best and more
particularly this is only institute in Delhi providing 3 year LL.B.
Course after graduation. The Respondent No. 2 has prohibited
lateral entry in 5 year LL.B. course for students seeking admission
in Law Course after their graduation, thus by reducing number of
permissible admissions in the Respondent No. 4, the respondents
are infringing students fundamental right.
N. Because by reducing number of admissible students from 2310 to
1440 in the Respondent No. 4 will cause not only economic effect
on the citizen but also has prevent them from attaining higher
education.
19. That the Petitioner seeks liberty from your Lordships to add and /or
delete and/or amend any of the grounds during the submissions
before this Hon’ble Court.
20. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Petition before this
Hon’ble Court and/or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking
same or similar relief.
21. That this Hon’ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the present petition as the impugned infringement has taken
place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
In the light of the facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ/direction/order thereby Striking down Clause 5 A of Schedule-
III of Rules of Legal Education 2008 as enacted by Bar Council of
India being arbitrary, capricious and violative of fundamental
rights.
(ii) Directing Respondents to admit 2310 students in the Respondent
No.4 and not to reduce number of admissible students.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favor of the
Petitioner and against the Respondents.
It is prayed accordingly.
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
New Delhi
Date
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sn. Particulars Page No.
1. Notice of Motion
2. Urgent Application
3. Memo of Parties
4. List of Dates and Events.
5. Public Interest Litigation Under Article 226 of
Constitution of India 1950 alongwith affidavit.
6. Annexure P-1(Colly): Copy of representation mailed
on 01.09.2016.
7. Annexure P-2: Copy of news
8. Application Under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 CPC on behalf of the petitioner seeking
ad-interim ex-parte stay order alongwith Affidavit.
9. Application under section 151 CPC for exemption
from filing legible/typed copy of certain annexures
alongwith affidavit.
10. Vakalatnama
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA
S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063 ………PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. Bar Council of India,
Through its Chairman,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110 002
E-mail ID: info@barcouncilofindia.org
email: manankumarmishra@gmail.com
5. University of Delhi
Through The Vice Chancellor
Maurice Nagar,Delhi
E-mail ID: vc@du.ac.in
6. Faculty of Law,
Through its Dean,
University of Delhi,
Maurice Nagar,Delhi
E-mail ID: lawfaculty@gmail.com
…RESPONDENTS
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir,
The enclosed petition in the aforesaid matter as being filed on behalf of
the Petitioner and is likely to be listed on ________________ or any
date, thereafter. Please take notice accordingly.
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
URGENT APPLICATION
Kindly treat this accompanying petition as an urgent one in
accordance with the High Court Rules and orders as the Petitioner is
seeking amendment of the impugned policy.
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
SEEKING AD-INTERIM DIRECTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest
Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The contents
of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may
be read with part and parcel of this application.
2. That the need of the hour is granting education to maximum
students using the public money to enhance education amongst
youth of the country.
3. That there exists prima-facie case in favour of the Petitioner as the
same is in interest of public at large.
4. That the Public at large shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in
case the interim order as prayed is not granted in its favour.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be
pleased to
(A) Pass an ad-interim ex-parte order thereby directing Respondents to
admit 2310 students in the Respondent No.4 and not to reduce
number of admissible students;
Or
(B) Any other order as this Hon’ble court deems fit
It is prayed accordingly.
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE
LEGIBLE/TYPED/CERTIFIED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Public Interest
Litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The
contents of the same are not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity and may be read with part and parcel of this application.
2. That the petitioner also despite best effort has not been able to
get legible copies of the some documents.
3. That in view of the same present application is being moved
praying that the Hon’ble Court may exempt the petitioner from
filing the legible copies of certain documents.
4. That the present application is bonafide and may be allowed in
the interest of justice.
PRAYER:
In the facts and circumstances submitted herein above, it is, therefore,
most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice
may be pleased to:
A. Petitioner may be exempted from filing the
legible/typed/certified copies of certain documents.
B. Pass such other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the
present case in favour of the petitioner.
It is prayed accordingly.
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
JOGINDER SUKHIJA
R/o 174, IInd Floor,
Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
Delhi
Dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
Affidavit
I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd
Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well
conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to
depose and swear the present affidavit.
2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying
Application and the contents of the same are correct to my
knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my
counsel under my instruction.
Deponent
Verification:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of May 2017.
Deponent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
Affidavit
I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd
Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well
conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to
depose and swear the present affidavit.
2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying
Application and the contents of the same are correct to my
knowledge and as per records, the same has been drafted by my
counsel under my instruction.
Deponent
Verification:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of May 2017.
Deponent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP( C ) NO……………….. 2017
(IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF :
JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
Affidavit
I, Joginder Sukhija, s/o. Prabhu Dayal, age about years, R/o 174, IInd
Floor, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above state matter and being well
conversant with the facts of the case is as such competent to
depose and swear the present affidavit.
2. That I have filed the present petition as Public Interest
Litigation.
3. That I have gone through the High Court (public Interest
Litigation) Rules, 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present
Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.
4. That the petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and
neither myself nor anybody who the petitioner is interested
would in any manner benefit from the relief sought in the
present petition save as the member of general public. The
petition is not guided by self gain or gain of any person,
institution, body or there is no motive other than of public
interest in filing the present petition.
5. That I have done whatsoever enquiry/investigation which was in
my power to do to collect all data/material which was relevant
for this court to entertain the present petition. I further confirm
that I have not concealed in the present petition any
data/material/information which may have enabled this court to
form an opinion whether to entertain this petition or not and/or
whether to grant any relief or not.
6. That the documents filed along with the petition are true copies
of their originals.
Deponent
Verification:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been kept concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of May 2017.
Deponent
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
1924 The Respondent no.4, Faculty of Law has been a
leader in the field of legal education in India and
continues to be so till date.
1970 Law Centre-I was established with the demand for
increase in the number of students to be admitted in
the Law Faculty
1971 Law Centre-II
1975 Campus Law centre was established
17.05.2017 The Petitioner filed representations with the
Respondents through E-mails, however has not
received any response from Respondents. The
representation was mailed on 17.05.2017
top related