[2025:RJ-JP:3213-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6450/2020 Suo Motu ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu. 2. University Grants Commission, New Delhi. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Sakthivel, complainant present in person through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Ms. Amula Jaimini HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 22/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Court had taken suo motu cognizance on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant Mr. K.N. Sakthivel on certain allegations with regard to the award of Doctorate Degree to one Mr. Bukke Pratap Naik. 3. After notices were issued to the other parties and the material which was placed before this Court followed by the perusal of the original record, on 04.09.2023 this Court recorded that the suo motu cognizance was taken on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, who himself was a defaulter in a University and he misled by sending the letter to this Court [2025:RJ-JP:3213-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6450/2020] suppressing the fact that one Mr. Bukke Pratap Naik had undertaken thesis work under regular faculty in addition to the guidance by Dr. B. Jaipal Reddy as co-guide, who was also registered with the University, though he was not the regular faculty of the University. After notices were issued, reply has also been filed. 4. We have heard Mr. K.N. Sakthivel, complainant present in person through VC and perused his reply, which is far from satisfactory. 5. We are of the view that the credentials of the complainant itself are not clear. The allegations which were made in the letter, which relate to taking suo motu cognizance, are not only factually incorrect, but also an act of misleading the Court by suppressing the fact that Mr. Bukke Pratap Naik has undertaken research work under the guide of the University, which was regular faculty. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has abused the process of law. 6. Taking into consideration the age of the complainant, we are inclined to impose token cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of one month from today. He is warned not to indulge in this kind of frivolous complaints to settle his own scores with the institutions. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ RAJAT/AMIT/79