SRI. PUTTARAJU. L. R. v. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY

- 2 -

THE 1^STRESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY

O THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW

UNIVERSITY ACT AND THE RULES MADE THERE UNDER

DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER

TO APPEAR AND WRITE THE 4^THSEMESTER EXAMINATION ON

WARDS OF B.A.LLB OF 5 YEARS COURSE AND DECLARE THE

RESULTS OF ALL THE SEMESTERS I.E., 1ST, 2ND, 3RD AND

4TH SEMESTER OF B.A. LLB OF 5 YEARS COURSE AS IF THERE

IS NO PUNISHMENT IMPOSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER

CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-K

DATED 02.06.2025; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 02.06.2025 issued by respondent - University, wherein it is stated that the Committee constituted for examining the malpractice has given a report stating that the petitioner was in possession of a chit and answers written in the answer booklet at page Nos.7 and 8 exactly matches with the chit, as per Annexure-K to the writ petition.

- 3 -

2. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and taking into account the finding recorded by Malpractice Consideration Committee, I am of the view that, in so far as academic matters are concerned, this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. SARANG AND OTHERS, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427, the finding recorded by the fact finding body has to be accepted. Since the fact finding Committee has arrived at a finding as per Annexure-K, this Court cannot embark upon and investigate the same.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

4. Consequently, I.A.1/2025 does not survive for consideration.

SD/-

(E.S.INDIRESH)

JUDGE

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31