# Mahendra Prasad Tripathi v. The V.C., Allahabad University, Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 126
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-05-26
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-prasad-tripathi-v-the-v-c-allahabad-university-allahabad-and-others-39476
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
126
case of A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai and
others A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 921, I
do not find the said case to be an authority
for the purpose of the present case. In the
said case question regarding use of
mechanical process for casting votes in the
context of Article 324, Constitution of
India was considered. As also directed by
this Court in the case of Shamim Abbas
(supra) it shall be open to the concerned
authority under Arms Act, to regulate sale
and purchase of ammunition during such
period
like
elections
and
reasonable
restriction may be placed if necessary, on
purchase of aminition which may be
allowed by considering cases individually
considering the facts and circumstances of
each case independently.

20. In view of direct decisions of this
Court and the reasons given above there is
no need to quash letter dated 26.5.2000
issued by Additional Commissioner State
Election
Commission
U.P.
Lucknow
(Annexure III to the writ petition) as it
does not contain any direction for general
depositing of fire arms against the
provisions of Arms Act and to this extent
refuse to issue a writ of certiorari as
claimed in the writ petition.

21. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the respondents not
to
compel
the
citizens
within
their
respective jurisdiction to surrender/deposit
their fire arms provided they held valid
licence, without there being a specific
order passed by the competent statutory
authority under Arms Act merely on the
basis of the general order on the ground of
holding of panchayat elections.

22. The writ petition is allowed in
part as indicated above. There will be no
order as to cost.
23. This order shall govern all other
similar pending matters in this court and
shall be deemed to have been decided in
terms
of
the
orders
and
directions
mentioned above.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -81(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -81(
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$ -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$ -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

0DKHQGUD 3UDVDG 7ULSDWKL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 9LFH &KDQFHOORU $OODKDEDG 8QLYHUVLW\
$OODKDEDG DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 3UDEKD 6KDQNDU 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6KUL $%/ *RXU

,QGLDQ (YLGHQFH $FW 6 (VWRSSHO
$SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG SDUD
7KH IDFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW FDVH GR QRW VKRZ
WKDW
WKH
DSSHOODQW
ZDV
FRPSOHWHO\
LJQRUDQW RI WKH PLVWDNH LQ WKH PDUNVKHHW
LVVXHG WR KLP DQG WKDW KH QRQ ILGHO\
EHOLHYHG WKDW KH KDG VHFXUHG PDUNV
LQ WKH 0$ 3UHYLRXV H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG
DFWLQJ
XSRQ
VXFK
D
EHOLHI
KH
WRRN
DGPLVVLRQ DQG DSSHDUHG LQ 0$ )LQDO
H[DPLQDWLRQ
,W
DSSHDUV
WKDW
WKH
DSSHOODQW FRQVFLRXVO\ WRRN DGYDQWDJH RI
WKH ZURQJ PDUNVKHHW LVVXHG WR KLP DQG
SHUXVHG WKH FRXUVH RI VWXG\ 0$ )LQDO
FODVV
DQG
DOVR
DSSHDUHG
LQ
WKH
VDLG
H[DPLQDWLRQ :H DUH WKHUHIRUH RI WKH
RSLQLRQ WKDW RQ WKH IDFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW
FDVH WKH DSSHOODQW FDQQRW FRQWHQG WKDW
RQ WKH SULQFLSOH RI HVWRSSHO WKH XQLYHUVLW\
LV GHEDUUHG IURP SURFHHGLQJ RQ WKH EDVLV
3All] Mahendra Prasad Tripathi V. The V.C., Allahabad University, Allahabad and others 127
RI
WKH
PDUNV
ZKLFK
KH
KDG
DFWXDOO\
VHFXUHG LQ 0$ 3UHYLRXV H[DPLQDWLRQ
&RQVHTXHQWO\ ZH KDYH QR RSWLRQ EXW WR
GLVPLVV WKH DSSHDO

By the Court

1. This special appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
8.3.2000 of a learned Single Judge by
which writ petition no. 51130 filed by the
appellant was disposed of with certain
directions.

2. The case of the appellant in the
writ petition was that he passed M.A.
(Previous) examination in English subject
from Allahabad University and in the
mark-sheet issued to him on 24.10.1997 he
was shown to have secured 357 marks out
of
600
marks.
Thereafter,
he
took
admission in M.A. (Final) class and
deposited the fee, etc. He filled in the form
for M.A. (Final) examination and the
university issued him an admit card
bearing roll no. 2537. He appeared in the
back-paper examination of Ist paper of
M.A. (Final) examination on 22.2.1999
after depositing the fee of Rs.153/- The
result of M.A. (Final) was declared in first
week of June 1999 but the appellant's
result was not declared. He moved several
applications for declaration of result and
issuing him the mark-sheet but no action
was taken. Consequently, he filed writ
petition no. 39920 of 1999 praying that a
writ of mandamus be issued directing the
university to declare his result and issue
him the mark-sheet of M.A. (Final)
examination. The writ petition was
disposed of on 20.9.1999 with a direction
to the Controller of Examination of
Allahabad University to consider the
appellant's
representation
and
communicate the decision by a reasoned
order. The Controller of Examination
thereafter
communicated
the
decision
11.11.1999 of the Examination Committee
of the University that his result M.A.
(Final) examination cannot be declared as
he
had
failed
in
M.A.
(Previous)
examination. It was further mentioned that
on account of mistake, a wrong mark-sheet
of M.A. (Previous) had been issued to him
and subsequently he was informed by
registered
post
to
return
the
said
mark0sheet. It was also mentioned that on
sympathetic
consideration.
He
was
allowed
to
appear
in M.A. (Final)
examination but as he did not return the
mark-sheet his examination of M.A.
(Previous) had been cancelled.

3. The appellant then filed writ
petition no. 51130 of 1999, which has
given rise to the present appeal, praying
that the order dated 11.11.1999 be quashed
and a writ of mandamus be issued
commanding the respondents to issue the
mark-sheet of M.A. (Final) examination
and declare the result. The writ petition
was disposed of by the learned Single
Judge on 8.3.2000 with the following
directions:-

"...In the circumstances relying upon
uncontroverted averments of the petitioner
that he was not informed any time for
appearing in the back paper of M.A.
Previous, this writ petition is finally
disposed of with a direction that the
University will permit the petitioner to
appear in back paper of M.A. Previous in
English, in respect of only those papers in
which the petitioner had failed and if the
petitioner passes in those papers, his result
of M.A. Previous in English and M.A.
Final examination will be declared.

It is clarified that this order does not mean
that the University will arrange for special
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
128
paper for the petitioner. The order only
means that when the examinations are held
in
M.A.
previous
in
English,
the
University will allow the petitioner to
appear in the said paper."

4. The appellant feeling dissatisfied
with the aforesaid direction of the learned
Single Judge has preferred this special
appeal and has contended that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the
university was bound to proceed on the
footing that the mark-sheet issued to him
of M.A. (Previous) examination is correct
and, therefore, his result of M.A. (Final)
examination cannot be withheld.

5. The university has not filed any
counter affidavit in the writ petition.
However, in order to ascertain complete
facts and to do justice between the parties,
we permitted the university to file a
counter affidavit in the appeal. Therefore,
two counter affidavits, one sworn on
10.5.2000
and
the
other
sworn
on
18.5.2000 were filed on behalf of the
university. The appellant filed rejoinder
affidavit on 22.5.2000.

6. The case of the university as
disclosed in the counter affidavits filed by
it is as follows. The appellant Mahendra
Pratap
Tripathi
appeared
in
M.A.
(Previous) examination with roll no. 1558.
A photocopy of the examination form
filled in by the appellant wherein, this roll
number was assigned to has been filed as
Annesure-1 to the counter affidavit. A girl
candidate
namely,
Km.
Maneesha
Upadhaya of the same class had been
assigned
roll
no.
1559.
After
the
examination was over the mark-sheet of all
the students of M.A. (Previous) of English
subject was prepared in the Computer
Section on 24.10.1997. On account of
some mistake in the mark-sheet roll no.
1558 was shown against Km. Maneesha
Upadhaya and she was shown to have
secured 183 marks and was declared to
have failed. The name of the appellant
Mahendra Pratap Tripathi was shown
against roll no. 1559 and he was shown to
have secured 357 marks and was declared
to have passed the examination. A
photocopy of the mark-sheet has been filed
as Annexure-2 tot he counter affidavit.
After declaration of result Km. Maneesha
Upadhaya
immediately
contacted
the
university authorities and on scrutiny the
mistake was discovered. Thereafter, a
correct
mark-sheet
was
prepared
on
8.1.1998 in which against the roll no.
1558, the name of the appellant was shown
and it was mentioned that he had secured
183 marks and had failed while against roll
no. 1559, the name of Km. Maneesha
Upadhaya was shown and she was shown
to have passed. A copy of the corrected
mark-sheet has been filed as Annexure-3
to the counter affidavit. It is specifically
averred in para 7 of the counter affidavit
that immediately after the mistake had
been discovered, letters were sent to the
appellant on 8.11.1997 both at his local
address and at home address and a notice
was also pasted on the notice board of the
English Department. The case of the
university further is that the appellant
misbehaved with the Head of the English
Department and also the Controller of
Examination on the ground that he had
been issued a wrong mark-sheet and,
consequently, he was suspended from the
English Department. However on his
tendering apology, the suspension order
was revoked and a true copy of the said
order has been filed as Annexure-4. This
incident occurred when the appellant was
studying in M.A. (Final) examination. An
order was also passed on 19.8.1998 that
3All] Mahendra Prasad Tripathi V. The V.C., Allahabad University, Allahabad and others 129
the
appellant
may
be
provisionally
permitted to appear in M.A. (Final)
examination but the result shall not be
declared till he was cleared of the charge
of indiscipline for which he had been
placed under suspension.

7. During the course of the hearing of
the appeal, the appellant was asked to
produce
the
original
mark-sheet
of
M.A.(Previous) examination which he did
on 23.5.2000. The mark-sheet mentions his
name but the roll number mentioned
thereon is 1559. In the said mark-sheet, he
is shown to have secured 60,53,61,60, and
63 marks in I,II,III,IV and V paper
respectively and 60 marks in Viva Voice.
The total shown is 357 out of 600. The
university also produced before us the
copies of the appellant of I,II,III,IV and V
paper wherein, he has secured 36,20,31
and 22 marks. The copy of IInd paper
however was not produced. These copies
bear the roll no.1558 on the first page. We
have been informed by the counsel for the
university that the appellant secured 29
marks in IInd paper and 45 in Viva Voice
which is also mentioned in the corrected
copy of the mark-sheet of the university
dated 8.1.1998 (Annexure-3 to the IInd
counter affidavit). The copies were shown
to the appellant who admitted that the
same were his copies. He also admitted
that his roll number in M.A. (Previous)
examination was 1558 and not 1559.

8. The facts, which emerge out from
the affidavits filed by the parties are that
the roll number of the appellant in M.A.
(Previous) examination was 1558 and he
had actually secured only 183 marks out of
600 and had failed in the examination.
Km. Maneesha Upadhaya, who had been
assigned roll no. 1559 had secured 357
marks and had passed in M.A. (Previous)
examination. The main ground urged by
the appellant, who appeared in person, is
that after declaration of M.A. (Previous)
examination he took admission in M.A.
(Final) class and deposited the necessary
fee, etc. He studied in the said class and
thereafter filled in the form for M.A.
(Final) examination and in fact appeared in
the
said
examination.
In
these
circumstances the university was estopped
from contending that he had failed in M.A.
(Previous) examination and, therefore, his
result of M.A. (Final) examination cannot
be declared. Though not argued in so many
words but the contention of the appellant is
based upon the principle of estoppel.

9 Assuming that the principle of
estoppel of estoppel is applicable in
matters relating to examination of a
student in an academic institution, it has to
be determined whether the facts are such
which conclusively establish that the
appellant believed the representation made
by the university namely, that he had
passed the M.A. (Previous) examination
and altered his position to his detriment.
The very first act attributed to the
university by the appellant is that in the
mark-sheet issued to him he was shown to
have secured 357 marks and to have
passed the M.A. (Previous) examination.
But as mentioned earlier the mark-sheet
though mentioned his name but mentioned
roll number of another student. This
should
have
immediately
aroused
a
suspicion in the mind of the appellant that
there was some mistake. The roll number
of a student is an important feature in the
examination.
In
all
probability
the
appellant must be knowing that 1559 was
the roll number of Maneesha Upadhaya
who was a much better student. This is
evident from the fact that she has secured
almost double marks than that of the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
130
appellant. The appellant may have thought
to retain the said mark-sheet and take
advantage of the same. According to the
university, letters were sent to him on
8.11.1997 that is within two weeks of the
preparation of the original mark-sheet
asking him to return the mark-sheet issued
to him as there was some mistake in the
same. A notice to the same effect was also
pasted on the notice board of English
Department of University. In the rejoinder
affidavit, the appellant has denied the
aforesaid fact and has pleaded that he gave
several applications between 7.7.1999 and
17.8.1999 praying for declaration of his
result. The second counter affidavit has
been sworn by the legal Assistant of the
university and we have no reason to doubt
its correctness. The appellant has not made
any allegations of mala fide. There is no
reason as to why the assertion of the
University that letters were sent to the
appellant both at his local address and also
at his home address asking him to return
the mark-sheet as there was a mistake
should not be accepted. It clearly shows
that within two weeks of the declaration of
result the appellant had been informed
about the mistake in the mark-sheet of
M.A. (Previous) examination which had
been issued to him. The university has
further pleaded that the appellant had been
suspended as he had misbehaved with the
controller of Examination and Head of
English Department but later on the said
order was withdrawn. It is no doubt true
that the appellant was admitted in M.A.
(Final) class and was also allowed to
appear in the examination. This was
certainly a mistake on the part of the
university. It appears that at the time when
the appellant took admission in the M.A.
(Final) class or filled in the form for the
said class, the mistake was not brought to
the notice of concerned person dealing
with the matter. However, what we are
concerned here is whether the appellant
bonafidely and honestly believed the
mark-sheet initially issued to him as
correct and altered his position his
determent
acting
upon
such
a
representation. The facts of the present
case do not show that the appellant was
completely ignorant of the mistake in the
mark-sheet issued to him and that he bona
fidely believed that he had secured 357
marks in the M.A. (Previous) examination
and acting upon such a belief he took
admission and appeared in M.A. (Final)
examination. It appears that the appellant
consciously took advantage of the wrong
mark-sheet issued to him and pursued the
course of study in M.A. (Final) class and
also appeared in the said examination. We
are, therefore, of the opinion that on the
facts of the present case, the appellant
cannot contend that on the principle of
estoppel the university is debarred from
proceeding on the basis of the marks
which he had actually secured in M.A.
(Previous) examination. Consequently, we
have no option but to dismiss the appeal.

10. In normal course of events, the
appellant having failed in M.A. (Previous)
examination, has to read in the said class
all over again and to appear in the said
examination. In such an event, the result of
M.A. (Final) examination also cannot be
taken into consideration. However, the
learned Single Judge has issued a direction
that the university will permit the appellant
to appear in such back papers of M.A.
(Previous) examination in which he has
failed and in case he passes the previous
examination his result of M.A. class (both
Previous and Final) will be declared. Sri
A.B.L. Gaur, learned counsel for the
university has also made a statement that
though under the rules the appellant was
3All] Kamalawati V. Kotwal, Rasra, Ballia and others
131
 not entitled to appear in back papers
as he has secured less than 36 per cent
marks in 4 out of 5 papers but as a special
case and in order to mitigate the hardship
caused to the appellant, the university will
permit him to appear in the back papers of
M.A. (Previous) examination.

11. In view of the discussion made
above, the special appeal is dismissed and
the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge is affirmed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
.DPDODZDWL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
.RWZDO 5DVUD %DOOLD
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6UL /DOODQ &KDXEH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
5LJKW WR OLIH LQFOXGHV ULJKW WR KHDOWK ZKLFK
QHFHVVDULO\
PHDQV
LQ
PDLQWHQDQFH
RI
(FRORJ\ DQG WR FKHFN SROOXWLRQGLUHFWLRQV
LVVXHG WR DOO WKH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH WR
HQVXUH WKDW QR EUHDNNOLQ LV DOORZHG WR
UXQ LQ EUHDFK RI FRQFHUQHG *2V
+HOG ±SDUD
7KH JULHYDQFH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU FRQFHUQV
WKH HQWLUH VRFLHW\ DW ODUJH SDUWLFXODUO\ WKH
UXUDO SRSXODWLRQ LQ DV PXFK DV UXQQLQJ RI
EULFN NLOQ ZLWKRXW HQVXULQJ SURWHFWLRQ WR
WKH HQYLURQPHQW HFRORJ\ DQG JURYH LV D
VRFLDO PHQDFH

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and leaned Standing Counsel on
behalf of the Respondents.

2. Petitioner claiming to be the
Pradhan of the village filed a suit and
certain
interim
order
was
obtained.
Thereafter an application was filed before
the Civil Court complaining breach of the
interim order. These orders are ex parte.

3. Copy of the order sheet has not
been annexed to satisfy this court that all
efforts were taken to serve Defendants in
the said suit.

4. Considering the controversy raised
by the Petitioner, I treat this petition to be
public interest litigation. The grievance of
the Petitioner concerns the entire society at
large particularly the rural population
inasmuch as running of. Brick kiln,
without
ensuring
protection
to
the
environment, ecology and grove, is a
social menace.

5. I regret that this petition has been
filed casually. Petitioner has not even
cared to produce Government Order/s
dealing with the subject. The relief's
sought, if allowed, are bound to seriously
prejudice Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6.
Petitioner ought to have taken utmost care
to
place
before
this
court
relevant
government
Orders
and
legislative
enactment's,
e.g.
Trees
and
Plant
Protection Act, Necessary Licensing Act
and Forest Corporation Act, Park and
Playground Act, Etc.) This Court takes
judicial notice that right to life includes
right to health, which necessarily means
maintenance of ecology and to check
pollution.