Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gunita Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2015
1
W.P. No.2053 of 2015,
14.5.2015
Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with
Shri A.P. Singh, Government Advocate, for the
respondents/State.
We wanted to hear the matter finally, but, the counsel for the petitioner insists that the interim application be decided first. The order dated 11.3.2015, in our opinion, is more than clear. Parties were put to notice that the main matter, itself, will proceed for hearing in the interest of justice.
The insistence of the petitioner for hearing on interim relief is for reasons best known to him. We do not want a situation where the parties would end up in uncertainty; or for that matter, petitioner later on would pray relief on the ground of equity. To obviate this uncertainty, we deem it appropriate to hear the matter finally today itself.
Counsel for the petitioner is not willing to argue the matter for final hearing today. Hence, we have no option but to hear this matter after summer vacation on 23.6.2015.
We reject the interim prayer application for the reasons already recorded in our order dated 11.3.2015 and 2 because we find no changed circumstances.
Notably, the next examination will commence in September, 2015. As a result, there is no need to reconsider the prayer for interim relief as prayed. Further, the question of granting interim relief does not arise because until petitioner fulfills the requirement of minimum attendance as per the extant Regulations of MCI, would not be entitled to appear in the Examination. The Examination will be conducted in September, 2015; and, by no standard, the petitioner would be able to comply with the bench mark of attendance before September, 2015, even if the petitioner succeeds in persuading us to grant interim relief to allow the petitioner to attend the classes. Thus, it is not necessary to consider the prayer for interim relief today.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that since the matter is now deferred till 23rd June 2015, petitioner be permitted to file further documents in response to reply field by the VYAPAM.
Petitioner is free to do so.
W.P.Nos. 2143, 2709, 5710, 6662, 6663, 6664, 6665, 6667, 6668, 6670, 6671, 6672, 6674, 6675, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6681, 6682, 6683, 6684, 6685, 6686, 6687, 6688, 6691, 6692, 6693, 6695, 6697, 6768, 6769, 6772, 6774, 6775, 6777 & 6781 all of 2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Counsel for the petitioners in remaining matters 3 submit that their matters be deferred as indicated in the order passed in the leading case, but, with liberty to the petitioners to file further affidavits/rejoinder- affidavit/additional documents in the concerned petitions.
We accede to this request. However, same be filed on or before 10.6.2015 so that the respondents may be able to respond to the same in time to ensure that matters proceed for final hearing on the next date.
In future, the matters be listed in separate subject categories as follows :
Vyapam Cases Category - Circle Filling cases - Impugned order dated 31.12.14 S.No. WP No. Case Name 1 2053/15 Ravina Asrani v. State 2 2143/15 Gunita Bansal v. State 3 2709/15 Harshita Mishra v. State 4 5710/15 Varsha Verma v. State 5 6768/15 Niharika Tiwari Vs. State 6 6781/15 Chitrangana Jain Vs. State 7 6769/15 Chitrangana Jain v. State 8 6772/15 Disha Sethiya v. State 9 6774/15 Yash v. State 10 6775/15 Akash Parasar v. State 11 6777/15 Sameer Tiwari v. State Category - Dean Cancellation S.No. WP No. Case Name Date of order 1 6662 /15 Arun Kumar v. State 16.9.14 2 6665/15 Monika Yadav v. State 3 6681/15 Nirmala Solanki v. State 4 4 6663/15 Dharmendra V. State 22.7.14 5 6664/15 Meharvan v. State 6 6667/15 Deepak Rawat v. State 7 6670/15 Manish Shakya v. State 8 6674/15 Rajkumar Singh v. State 9 6677/15 Hemdatt Maury v. State 10 6682/15 Madan Singh v. State 11 6683/15 Pradeep Rajouriya v. State 12 6686/15 Gajendra Singh v. State 13 6693/15 Titiya Singh v. state 14 6695/15 Surendra Singh v. State 15 6697/15 Sanjeev Shakya v. State 16 6671/15 Sanjeev Sharma v. State 02/09/14 17 6678/15 Bhupendra Singh v. State 18 6668/15 Jitendra v. State 19 6688/15 Hitendra Nagariya v. State 20 6691/15 Arvind Kumar Jatav v. State 21 6692/15 Dashrath Singh v. State 22 6684/15 Satendra Singh v. State 23 6685/15 Santosh Kumar v. State 24.5.14 24 6672/15 Jabar Singh v. State 29.5.14 25 6679/15 Kamlesh Singh v. State 20.9.14 Cases Covered by order passed in WP No.1918/14 -
Neetu Singh Markam v. State S.No. WP No. Case Name Date of order 1 6675/15 Avinash Dodiyar v. State 12.6.14 (VYAPAM) & 9/5/14 (GR Medical College) Cases where VYAPAM is not a party S.No. WP No. Case Name Date of order 1 6687/15 Arun Yadav v. State No order challenged 5 The matters which have been transferred from Indore and Gwalior Bench, the Registry is directed to issue SPC forthwith; and, in addition, notices to the Advocates on record, who were appearing before the concerned Benches for the concerned petitioners along with copy of this order.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (K. K. Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge
Khan*