The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions against respondent authorities to enquire into the matter of fraudulent submission of data by Respondent no. 6 (University) in its self-study report.
The petitioner has preferred the petition seeking the following reliefs:-
I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding Respondent No. 1 (Union Of India) , Respondent No. 2 (University Grants Commission (UGC), Respondent No. 3 (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) and Respondent No. 4 (National Institutional Ranking Framework) 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, 3and 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 accreditation and national ranking that the Respondent no. 3 and 4 have been granted to the Universities in the past five years.
The petitioner has averred that one Advocate had made a complaint in relation to the Respondent no. 6, which was forwarded to the UGC for consideration.
It is further stated that the UGC, in turn, forwarded the said complaint to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) on 16.07.2021.
The petitioner discloses before the Court that NAAC has informed Advocate on 31.08.2021 that his complaint against the Respondent no. 6 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.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed that pertinently, Advocate has not approached the Court. Firstly, the High Court has doubts about the petitioner’s locus standi to maintain the petition. Secondly, the petitioner’s relief is directed against respondent No. 3, which is situated at Bangalore, Karnataka.
Therefore, the Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed the PIL.