GITA MITTAL, J. - (1.) The present writ petition brings to the fore the manner in which judicial pronouncements are not being given effect to in a timely manner thereby defeating the directions made therein. This Court vide a judgment which is reported at 112 (2004) DLT 53 entitled Abhinitam Vs. University of Delhi and others issued specific directions in its judgment dated 8th April, 2004 directing the respondents as follows :- "22. Before parting with the matter, I am constrained to comment on certain aspects which have come to the notice of this Court during the proceedings of the present matter. The admission process apparently was started in November, 2003 and took shade only in December, 2003 when more than half the term was over. This is an extremely undesirable situation. Once the departments finalise their merit list, expeditious steps should be taken to fill up the seats in the hostel on merit as otherwise students are left to fend for themselves. The second aspect arises on account of the fact that each candidate has to apply to different hostels and there is bound to be overlapping in this procedure. The University must consider the feasibility of a centralised admission procedure to the hostels where the options/merit of the candidate are taken into consideration instead of making the student apply to different hostels. Lastly, for the Law Faculty admissions there should be specified bifurcation of seats under different categories for the three years of LLB course and two years of the LLM course to obviate the possibility of any arbitrariness or favouritism. It may also be noticed that the petitioner was asked to leave the accommodation while admittedly even on date there is a person who is in unauthorised occupation of a room and no action has been taken to clear the room. The petitioner has also given names of other persons who were permitted to continue to stay as guests and the only unsatisfactory answer in the counter affidavit is that these students were ultimately found eligible. I consider it appropriate that these matters be considered by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and for the said purpose, the judgment be placed before him for necessary action." This judgment cited with approval yet another pronouncement by this Court reported at 98(2002) DLT 679 entitled Manish Chandra Pathak Vs. University of Delhi and others.
(2.) Despite these two authoritative pronouncements, students undertaking the LLB or the LLM courses in the Faculty of Law of the Delhi University are being put to tremendous difficulties in allocation of seats in the hostels.
(3.) The petitioner is one such student who appeared in the LLM Entrance Test 2004 conducted by the Faculty of Law of the respondent no.1 on 27th June, 2004 He secured 13th rank in the merit list and was admitted on 20th July, 2004 to the LLM first year course. As the petitioner hails from District Hisar(Haryana), he has no place of residence in the entire National Capital Region. The petitioner, for want of accommodation, was compelled to take on rent accommodaticn at expensive rent which he says he unable to afford and is also facing difficulty on account of the expenses of food, lodging and transportation.;