Meghalaya High Court
C.M.J University vs The Union Of India on 16 November, 2017
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
WP (C) NO. 302 OF 2017
CMJ University Versus Union of India & Ors.
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
: ORDER :
WP (C) NO. 302 OF 2017 CMJ University Versus Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order :: 16.11.2017 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH Shri AP Singh, for the petitioner.
Ms. A Paul, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT: (per Hon'ble the Chief Justice) (Oral) Learned counsel Shri Aman Preet Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in this case, earlier listed today before the learned Single Judge in Court No. 1, he and not Shri SN Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that on the Bench having made an exception, his only intention in making the other submissions, for placing the matter before the Division Bench, was that he could make a mention before the Bench presided by the Chief Justice for taking up the matter on the coming Monday for he remained under the impression that the Chief Justice was not sitting Singly today; and the other part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Court No. 1 was only on the basis of such a request for permitting a mention and not beyond.
Learned ASG Ms. A Paul submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner made a mention before the learned Single Judge to approach the Division Bench of this Court and then, he realised that it was not the right forum to make a mention because today, the Chief Justice was sitting Singly too, apart from the Division Bench.
We may point out that Rule 4 of Chapter III of the Rules of High Court of Meghalaya, 2013 specifies the matters which are cognizable by a Division Bench. Ordinarily, the matter otherwise to be placed before the 2 WP (C) NO. 302 OF 2017 CMJ University Versus Union of India & Ors.
Single Judge is taken up by the Division Bench when, under Clause (d) of Rule 4 ibid., a Single Judge had referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before the Division Bench, having regard to the importance or complexity of the case. However, under Clause (f) of Rule 4 ibid., any other matter may also be listed before the Division Bench, if the Chief Justice so directs.
All the aspects aforesaid need not be dilated further in this order for the reason that under the directions of the Chief Justice, this matter has been taken up today itself by the Division Bench; and in the given circumstances, we are inclined to accept the explanation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his anxiety while making the submissions before the learned Single Judge was that he could make a mention before the Bench presided by the Chief Justice, because he remained under a mistaken impression that the Chief Justice will not be sitting Singly today. . On the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Aman Preet Singh further submits that in fact, his over anxiety of making a mention had been for the reason that the petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw, with liberty to take recourse of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The learned ASG Ms. A Paul frankly submits that she has no objection as regards this prayer of the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above and without any other comment as regards any other aspects of the matter, while granting the prayer as made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw and this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sylvana Item No. SL-1