Allahabad High Court
College Of Professional Education & ... vs State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Higher ... on 15 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
1
Court No. 1
Writ Petition No. 6571 (MB) of 2010
College of Professional Education and others
Vs.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
List and connect with Writ Petitions No. 8265 (MB) of 2007 and 2160 (MB) of 2009.
Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondents no. 2, by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5, by Sri S.P. Shukla and on behalf of respondent no. 6, by Sri Padmkant Mishra.
Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, says that since similar question and the same Act is under challenge in the earlier writ petition, in which notices have been issued to the Attorney General of India and Advocate General, U.P., formal notices need not be issued to them.
Sri Padmkant Mishra appearing for Union of India says that he will ensure service of this petition upon Attorney General of India, whereas Sri D.K. Upadhyaya assures that he will serve the copy on learned Advocate General, U.P. also.
On submission being made by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya that respondents no. 7 and 8 are not necessary parties in the present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners says that he may be allowed to delete the respondents no. 7 and 8 from the array of respondents in the memo of writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further says that he may be permitted to implead the Meerut University.
He is permitted to delete the respondents no. 7 and 8 and implead the Meerut University during the course of the day.
Let copy of this petition be supplied to the Standing Counsel of Meerut University.
Sri D.K. Upadhyaya submitted that in view of the fact that interim orders have been granted earlier and the scheme of the Government is under challenge, the writ petition may be decided at an early date.
We also take notice of the fact that in our order dated 5.3.09, the 2 matter was supposed to be decided at an early date but till date the same could not be decided. In the meantime, despite there being interim order against the implementation of Section 4 of the State Act No. 23 of 2006, again the State Government has started exercise in the same manner, as according to the State, interim orders are confined to the academic session, in which the writ petition was filed.
Since the issues involved in the present writ petition are identical and exactly the same and there is already an interim order against the implementation of Section 4 of the Act, which order has not been interfered with in the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court, there is no occasion for the State for implementing the same, at present.
At this juncture, Sri D.K. Upadhyaya candidly stated that in view of the interim order already in existence, Section 4 of the Act of 2006 cannot be applied in the matter of admissions to B.Ed. course and, therefore, a general order be issued so that every institution is not made to run to the Court and the matter is decided finally.
We, therefore, provide that the benefit of the interim order dated 5.3.09 passed in Writ Petition No. 2160 (MB) of 2009 shall be available to the petitioners as well as to all the private unaided institutions in the State with respect to B.Ed. course. Consequently, Section 4 of the Act shall not be implemented, till the next date of listing.
Sri D.K. Upadhaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel also submits that since purely legal questions are involved and the State has already filed counter affidavit in the earlier petition, the State does not intend to file any counter affidavit in this case.
However, counsel for Union of India says that he would like to file counter affidavit, though no counter affidavit has been filed by Union of India in the earlier writ petition till date.
The question involved in the present writ petition is purely legal but in view of the prayer made by the counsel for Union of India, we fix this matter for 9.8.2010 for peremptorily hearing and in the meantime if any affidavits are to be exchanged between the parties, the same may be exchanged.
Dated: 15.7.2010 MFA