2026:BHC-NAG:11054-DB 1 WP6449-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6449/2026 (ROSHAN MANOHAR PATIL VERSUS THE SECRETARY, ICC, VNIT, NAGPUR) OfficeNotes,OfficeMemorandaofCoram, appearances,Court'sordersofdirections Court'sorJudge'sorder andRegistrar'sorders. Petitioner in person. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026 . P. C. Heard Shri R.M. Patil, petitioner in person and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a research scholar who was admitted to Ph.D. Full Time course in VNIT, Nagpur for the Academic Year 2025-26. The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the respondent which is at Record Page No.7, Annexure-B. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Internal Complaints Committee which is seized with the enquiry against the petitioner for various complaints made against him and directed the petitioner not to enter the VNIT Campus till the decision of the Committee. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court.

3. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that when this order was passed on 14.08.2026, the petitioner was given copies of the complaints and accordingly he rendered his explanation to the same. He submitted that considering the allegations in the complaints the copies of the complaints were given to the petitioner for perusal on the date of hearing wherein he has also given his explanation in writing. Possibility of misusing the complaints given by fifteen students against him compelled the Committee not to give the copy of the same to the petitioner. 2 WP6449-26.odt 4. Be that as it may, now the Internal Complaints Committee is conducting enquiry against the petitioner which may entail adverse civil consequences against the petitioner. 5. In view of above and in view of the principles of natural justice, the respondent is bound to supply all the adverse documents to the petitioner. 6. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent-VNIT fairly submits that the entire charge-sheet on the basis of which the enquiry shall be conducted against the petitioner will be supplied to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. 7. The petitioner shall submit his detail explanation to the allegations levelled in the aforesaid complaint and other adverse material in the charge-sheet within a period of two weeks from the date of serving of such charge-sheet on the petitioner.

8. Once the reply is received, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed by the Internal Complaints Committee by following due procedure of law and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner within further period of three weeks from the date of filing of reply by the petitioner. 9. Since the grievance as raised by the petitioner pertains to non-supply of the complaints stands redressed, nothing survives in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 25/08/2026 10:48:06

2026:BHC-NAG:11054-DB 1 WP6449-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6449/2026 (ROSHAN MANOHAR PATIL VERSUS THE SECRETARY, ICC, VNIT, NAGPUR) OfficeNotes,OfficeMemorandaofCoram, appearances,Court'sordersofdirections Court'sorJudge'sorder andRegistrar'sorders. Petitioner in person. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026 . P. C. Heard Shri R.M. Patil, petitioner in person and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is a research scholar who was admitted to Ph.D. Full Time course in VNIT, Nagpur for the Academic Year 2025-26. The petitioner seeks challenge to the impugned order dated 14.08.2026 passed by the respondent which is at Record Page No.7, Annexure-B. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Internal Complaints Committee which is seized with the enquiry against the petitioner for various complaints made against him and directed the petitioner not to enter the VNIT Campus till the decision of the Committee. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court.

3. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that when this order was passed on 14.08.2026, the petitioner was given copies of the complaints and accordingly he rendered his explanation to the same. He submitted that considering the allegations in the complaints the copies of the complaints were given to the petitioner for perusal on the date of hearing wherein he has also given his explanation in writing. Possibility of misusing the complaints given by fifteen students against him compelled the Committee not to give the copy of the same to the petitioner. 2 WP6449-26.odt 4. Be that as it may, now the Internal Complaints Committee is conducting enquiry against the petitioner which may entail adverse civil consequences against the petitioner. 5. In view of above and in view of the principles of natural justice, the respondent is bound to supply all the adverse documents to the petitioner. 6. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondent-VNIT fairly submits that the entire charge-sheet on the basis of which the enquiry shall be conducted against the petitioner will be supplied to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. 7. The petitioner shall submit his detail explanation to the allegations levelled in the aforesaid complaint and other adverse material in the charge-sheet within a period of two weeks from the date of serving of such charge-sheet on the petitioner.

8. Once the reply is received, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the enquiry against the petitioner shall be completed by the Internal Complaints Committee by following due procedure of law and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner within further period of three weeks from the date of filing of reply by the petitioner. 9. Since the grievance as raised by the petitioner pertains to non-supply of the complaints stands redressed, nothing survives in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 25/08/2026 10:48:06