Gujarat High Court
Mehsana vs Nathibai on 5 March, 2012
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/971/2012 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 971 of 2012
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 979 of 2012
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1373 of 2012
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1387 of 2012
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1733 of 2012
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1734 of 2012
=====================================================
MEHSANA PATAN JILLA KELAVANI MANDAL THROUGH MANAGING TRUSTEE - Petitioner(s) Versus NATHIBAI DAMODAR THACKERSEY WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY THROUGH & 1 - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance :
MRS VD NANAVATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
===================================================== CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 05/03/2012 ORAL (COMMON) ORDER (1) The matters pertain to students who have been admitted by the petitioners.
(2) After issuance of notice, on two occasions, Mr.Y.C.Contractor, learned counsel appeared before the court, mentioned the matters and also made a statement that appearance and affidavit-in-reply shall be filed on behalf the respondent-SNDT University.
(3) Earlier this Court passed the following common order dated 29.02.2012 in Special Civil Application Nos.971/2012 to 979/12:
"1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order cum letter dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure-A to the petition) and to direct the respondents to accept enrollment and eligibility form of B.Ed. Course 2011-12 of the students by approving their admissions and further prayed for stay of the aforesaid order dated 27.12.2011 and to direct the respondents to grant admission to the students.
2. Considering the fact that the matter pertains to students who have already been admitted by the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 30.1.2012 had passed the following order:-
"Notice returnable on 14.02.2012. Over and above the usual mode of service it would be open for the petitioner to serve both the respondents by Regd. Speed Post A.D."
3. On 14.2.2012, as per the order dated 30.1.2012, learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor appeared and made a statement before this Court that he would file his appearance for and on behalf of the respondents and sought time to file affidavit in reply. Considering the statement made by learned counsel Mr. Contractor, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2012 passed the following order:-
"1. Mr. Y.C. Contractor, learned counsel, on instructions, appears for the respondents.
2. Mr. Contractor, learned counsel states that he will file his appearance for and on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply.
3. Considering the fact that the matters pertain to admission of the students, the respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-reply on or before 21.02.2012. Rejoinder, if any, be filed on or before 27.02.2012. The matters are adjourned to 29.02.2012."
4. As aforesaid, even though specific order was passed in presence of learned counsel Mr. Contractor, neither the reply is filed, nor the appearance is filed which as such amounts to non-compliance of the earlier order which was passed in presence of learned counsel Mr. Contractor.
5. Today, learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor is present and again makes a similar statement that his appearance shall be filed and affidavit shall be filed on or before 5.3.2012. Mr. Contractor further submitted that in fact the respondents were not served. However, the record of these petitions reveal that the respondents are served and such a statement made by Mr. Contractor is contrary to his own statement made before this Court on 14.2.2012. Even the record shows that the respondents are duly served on 13.2.2012.
6. However, considering the fact that the matter pertains to fate of the students, the respondents are directed to file affidavit in reply latest by 5.3.2012, failing which, respondent No.1 shall personally remain present before this Court. This order is passed in presence of Mr. Contractor and therefore, Mr. Contractor is requested by this Court to inform respondent No.1 about the same.
7. Registry is directed to serve a copy of this order upon learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor who has orally submitted that he has instructions to appear for respondent No.1. Over and above this, the Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No.1 on Fax number as stated at Page 12 of the paper book forthwith.
8. Mr. Saurin Mehta, learned advocate for Mrs. V.D. Nanavati for the petitioners tenders an additional copy of the paper book of all the matters in Special Civil Application No.971 of 2012 to Special Civil Application No.979 of 2012.
S.O. to 5.3.2012."
(4) In spite of the aforesaid order, till date, neither affidavit-in-reply is filed nor respondent No.1 has remained present, which amounts to willful disobedience of the aforesaid order passed by this Court.
(5) Today, Mr.Kishor Paul, learned advocate, appears for the respondent-SNDT University and requests to grant further time. As noted above, neither affidavit-in-reply is filed nor respondent No.1 has remained present to explain, as per the earlier order, keeping the issue open "of willful disobedience of the aforesaid order dated 29.02.2012 of this Court", at the request of Mr.Paul, further time to file affidavit-in-reply is granted upto 12.03.2012. The other conditions, as enumerated in the order dated 29.02.2012, shall remain as it is.
(6) This order is passed in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Kishor Paul.
(7) The respondents are also directed to show cause as to why steps under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated for willful disobedience of the order dated 29.02.2012 of this Court.
(8) Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each group of matters.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J] *** Bhavesh* Top