1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9455 of 2026 Decided on: 31.07.2026 Aryan Panwar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Arjun K Lall, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 08.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.3 detaining the petitioner from the end-semester examinations, being arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to the proviso of Rule 12 of the BCI Rules; (ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondent No.2 (UG Programme Coordinator) to forthwith approve the academic leave application of the petitioner for the period 09.03.2026 to 13.03.2026 and direct recalculation of the petitioner’s attendance by condoning the 19 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 absences during the said period, resulting in revised aggregate attendance of 65.30%; (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the UG Programme Coordinator to forthwith consider and decide the academic leave application dated 7th June, 2026 in a fair manner, consistent with the treatment accorded to the application dated 3rd June, 2026, and consequently permit the petitioner to appear in the examination scheduled on 12th June, 2026; (iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2/competent authority of the University to exercise the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 12 of the BCI Rules in favour of the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to appear in the end-semester examinations of the 4th semester; (v) Direct the respondent-University to refrain from taking any adverse action against the petitioner’s enrollment, academic status or promotion to the 5th semester, pending disposal of this petition. 2. For seeking the above relief, the petitioner had specifically relied upon an academic leave application submitted by him for the period 09.03.2026 to 13.03.2026 to the respondent- National Law University. In the aforesaid application, petitioner had prayed for leave on account of his having undertaken internship during the period at ‘Netaratv Foundation’. Certificate of completion of internship from ‘Netaratv Foundation’ had also been appended with the writ petition at Annexure P-6. It is petitioner’s assertion that the aforesaid leave application has not been considered in accordance with law by the respondent university and further that in case, the period 3 during which he interned at ‘Netartav’ foundation is excluded, his attendance in fourth semester would became 65.30% or in other words attendance would fall within the ambit where the shortfall from requisite 70% attendance could be condoned by the Competent Authority. Petitioner currently has 58.21% attendance in the fourth semester. For the shortfall in his attendance, he was detained in the fourth semester and was not being permitted to appear in Fourth Semester End-Term Examinations. Keeping in view petitioner’s assertions, interim relief was granted in his favour and he was permitted to appear in End- Term Examinations of Fourth Semester vide order dated 11.06.2026 as under:- “Issue notice to respondent No.6, returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within three days. The petitioner/applicant has sought permission of this Court to allow him to appear provisionally in the 4th Semester End-Term Examinations commencing from 12.06.2026 and continuing thereafter during the pendency of the instant writ petition. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner/applicant has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-University on the ground that the application as well as the present petition is not maintainable in its present form. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant that in case interim protection is not granted to the petitioner/applicant, in that event, he would suffer huge and irreparable loss. It is further contended that the petitioner/applicant 4 may be permitted to sit provisionally in the examinations in question and he shall not claim any equity in his favour. Keeping in view attending facts and circumstances of the instant case coupled with the fact that the examinations in question are commencing from 12.06.2026 as also the fact that vide impugned notice, dated 08.06.2026, Annexure P-1, the petitioner/applicant has been detained, therefore, it will be in the fitness of interest of justice and fair play to allow the applicant/petitioner to appear in the 4th Semester End-Term Examinations commencing from 12.06.2026 provisionally subject to his depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Registry of this Court within two days. Ordered accordingly. However, it is clarified that the permission, which is being given to the applicant/petitioner to provisionally sit in the aforesaid examination, shall not create any equity in his favour and this arrangement shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The result of the applicant/petitioner shall not be declared without the leave of the Court. List after four weeks.” 3. The respondent- National Law University has filed reply disputing the veracity of Annexure P-6. In terms of the reply, the aforesaid document is forged and fabricated certificate; Online search of ‘Netaratv Foundation link’ did not establish existence of any such legal entity; A search of the name ‘Yogya G. Verma’ in his capacity as the Founder and President of the aforesaid foundation also did not yield any result favouring the petitioner; On Google search of the Co-Founder, i.e. Akshit Kadam, results revealed otherwise. According to the respondent- University, petitioner has fabricated the 5 document at Annexure P-6 to support his application seeking academic leave for the period 09.03.2026 to 13.03.2026 in order to get over the bar in Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2010 read in consonance with the embargo stipulated in Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University Academic and Examination Regulations, 2025. 4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked as to whether the petitioner wishes to continue with the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is under instructions to withdraw the writ petition. Taking lenient view of the matter, this petition instituted by a 20 years old law student is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. Interim order dated 11.06.2026 that was based upon petitioner’s reliance & projection on Annexure P-6 as a genuine document shall also stand vacated. Petitioner’s appearance in the End- Term Examinations of Fourth Semester based upon the above interim order becomes inconsequential and shall not bestow him any benefit whatsoever. Respondent- university is at liberty to proceed in the matter as deemed appropriate in 6 accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 31, 2026 Judge yogesh