Allahabad High Court
C/M Jai Prakash Degree College And ... vs Sri T. N. Singh, Vice-Chancellor, ... on 8 December, 2020
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1075 of 2020 Applicant :- C/M Jai Prakash Degree College And Another Opposite Party :- Sri T. N. Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kirtikar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lavlesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
Present contempt application has been filed for willful disobedience of the order dated 1.9.2017 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 34812 of 2017, which is quoted as under:
"Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Punit Khare, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.
This writ petition assails an order dated 25 April 2017 passed by the Vice Chancellor as also the resolutions of the Executive Council dated 29 May 2017 and a consequential order dated 18 July 2017 passed by the Registrar of the respondent-University. The dispute itself relates to the management of Jai Prakash Degree College which is affiliated with the respondent-University. Initially, this college is stated to have been under the management and control of a society styled as Jai Prakash Smarak Sewa Samiti. Subsequently, the petitioner asserts that the administration of this college was transferred to the Narayan Foundation Trust, a Trust duly constituted under the relevant statute. The petitioners assert that this transfer of the right to administer and manage to the Trust was duly communicated and also accepted by the respondent-University. The record further reveals that by an order dated 28 October 2014, its Committee of Management came to be recognized by the respondent-University for a period of five years. On a complaint made thereafter, the Vice Chancellor appears to have taken cognizance and pending decision by the Executive Council, he by an order dated 25 April 2017 provided that in the interregnum the affairs of the institution would be managed by the President of the Jai Prakash Smarak Sewa Samiti. Pursuant to the referral of the matter to the Executive Council, a decision is stated to have been taken by it holding that the management and administration of the institution shall stand reverted to the society. It is in this backdrop that the instant writ petition has come to be filed.
Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in support of the petition at the outset drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Executive Council and submitted that not only were no reasons assigned in support of the resolution passed, the order itself had been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view thereof, this Court had required Sri Vivek Verma to obtain instructions.
Upon instructions, Sri Vivek Verma has stated that the Executive Council had not issued a specific notice of hearing to the petitioners or the other rival claimaints. He further submits that in either view the issue of recognition of management would fall for consideration by the Vice Chancellor in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act. He therefore submitted that the petition in light of the objections taken by the petitioners, be disposed of at this stage, leaving all contentions on merits of respective parties open for resolution by the Vice Chancellor. He further states that in view of the above, no Counter Affidavit need be invited or be filed in these proceedings since the same is proposed to be disposed of at this stage itself.
Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel on instructions also submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending on the board of this Court, since the primary objection which is taken to the decision of the Executive Council, is it having been made without due notice to the petitioners and the rival claimaints. He also prays for a disposal of the writ petition without exchange of Affidavits, subject to all contentions on merits being left open, Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh then submits that the second petitioner who is stated to be a constituent of the Committee of Management which was recognized by the University by its order dated 28 October 2014 would clearly be ineligible to be part of the management on account of his functioning as the Principal in another recognized institution. This issue eitherways, in the opinion of this Court, need not detain the disposal of this writ petition since these as well as other objections would be open to be taken by the fifth respondent in proceedings which the Vice Chancellor shall now draw in light of the directions which are issued hereinafter.
Accordingly and with the consent of the learned counsels for parties, this writ petition shall stand disposed of with the following directions:
(1) Since the resolution of the Executive Council is stated to have been made without due notice to the petitioners or the fifth respondent coupled with the fact that it is devoid of any reasons in support of the ultimate decision arrived at, the said order is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. The order of the Vice Chancellor which itself appears to have been made pending consideration of the entire issue by the Executive Council and was interim in character also must therefore necessarily be set aside. The consequential order dated 18 July 2017 passed pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Council is also set aside.
(2) The Vice Chancellor in terms of the provisions of Section 2(13) of the 1973 Act shall now proceed in the matter afresh with due notice to the petitioners as well as the fifth respondent.
All contentions on merits of respective parties are left open for decision by the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor in the fitness of things shall endeavour to dispose of the issues raised by respective parties in accordance with law and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order."
On 23.11.2020, following order was passed:
"An impleadment application filed in Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lavlesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh has once again ensured this Court, as he had ensured on 13.12.2019 when the earlier contempt application (civil) no. 6918 of 2019 was consigned to record and notices were discharged, that the opposite party shall pass order under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 within the shortest possible time. The order dated 13.12.2019 is quoted herein as under:
"Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, submits that the elections of the Committee have been held and appropriate order under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, shall be passed shortly by the Vice Chancellor.
In view thereof, the contempt petition is consigned to to record, at this stage.
Notice(s), if any, stands discharged.
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel sought to explain that since the order of status quo dated 16.12.2019 was passed by this Court in Writ C No. 40352 of 2019, therefore, no order was passed.
In the opinion of the Court, issue involved in the abovenoted petition, prima facie, is a different issue.
However, as prayed, put up this matter on 08.12.2020 as supplementary fresh."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate has produced a photo copy of the order dated 7.12.2020, correctness whereof is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the writ Court has been complied with and no further orders are required to be passed in this contempt application.
Present contempt application is consigned to record.
However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this contempt proceedings shall not effect the merits of the case which may be filed by any of the parties who may be aggrieved with the order dated 7.12.2020.
Since this contempt application is being consigned to record, the impleadment application also stands consigned to record.
Order Date :- 8.12.2020 p.s.