Allahabad High Court
Harsh Bishnoi vs Hashim Ali And Anr. on 16 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988CRILJ1234
ORDER Amarendra Nath Varma, J.
1. This contept petition has been filed on the ground of the alleged disobedience to the following order passed by a Bench of this Court of which 1 was a member:
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the controversy, which eventually crystallised, was whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of his sessional, practical and project completed by him for the year 1983-84 towards 1984-85 examination. It is the case of the petitioner that on a true and proper interpretation of the relevant Statutes and the facts of the present case he should not be compelled to appear at the Sessional, Practical and Project again for the 1984-85 session. The learned Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that it being a case of re-admission, the petitioner had to appear again at the sessional and practical and submit a fresh Project and that he cannot rely on the Sessional, Practical and Project at which he had already appeared earlier in the 1983-84 session. It is, however, not necessary to resolve this legal controversy as, in our opinion, in view of the very special circumstances of the case arising from the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not able to continue his studies at the B.Sc. Engineering Course after 1980-81 until 1983-84 due to loss of his vision on account of accident, we have found a via media so that the petitioner does not become victim of an unfortunate circumstance, which was entirely beyond his control. The learned Counsel for the University Sri B.D. Agarwal has also very fairly stated that if the Court issues a direction on the lines, which we propose to do hereunder, the University shall not take any exception to it in view of the peculiar and special facts of the case, provided this case is not treated as a precedent.
We accordingly direct that the Sessional, Practical and Project already completed by the petitioner for the year 1983-84 Session be treated as the Sessional, Practical and Project for the session 1984-85 and the marks be awarded therein, if not already awarded, and his result be declared for the 1984-85 session after he appears at the viva voce examination for the Project and Practical and after he appears at the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86 in the necessary papers in accordance with the rules applicable to Supplementary Examinations and is declared successful therein. We, however, wish to make it absolutely clear that these directions have been given in the special circumstances of the case and the same may not be treated as a precedent in regard to the similar cases, which may arise in future.
The petition is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
Sd/ A.N.V. Sd/- S.K.D. 17-3-1986."
2. The contrempt petition was filed on May 19, 1986 arraying Sri Hashim Ali, the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University as well as the Controller of Examinations of the said University, namely, Sri N. Moinuddin. While admitting the petition on the same date this Court directed the respondents to be personally present in the Court on July 28, 1986. The respondents put in appearance in the petition which remained pending for some time before the learned single Judge (Hon'ble A.N. Dikshita, J.) who was hearing contempt petitions. The case was listed on several dates but could not be disposed of for one reason or another. It appears that the respondents felt aggrieved by this Court's not dispensing with their personal presence and by the continued pendency of the petition here. Consequently they approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which has been disposed of with the following directions:
The personal attendance of the petitioner in the contempt petition is dispensed with. The contempt petition will be heard by Justice A.N. Varma whose order is said to have not been complied with. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
3. That is how the matter is before me. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it seems necessary to briefly set out the background in which the aforesaid directions were issued by this Court while disposing of. the aforesaid writ petition No. 15201 of 1984. The petitioner was a student of Vth Year B.Sc. (Engineering) in the 1983-84 session in the Aligarh Muslim University. He was, however, detained from appearing at the examination because of shortage of attendance. Before the order of detention was passed he had already appeared at the Sessional and Practical examination and had also submitted his Project Report. He challenged the order detaining him by means of a petition No. 6181 of 1984 which was dismissed by this Court on July 19, 1984 whereupon he sought and was granted re-admission as a regular student in the next academic session i.e. 1984-85. However, after having secured his re-admission he again filed a petition (No. 15201 of 1984) on Nov. 13, 1984 challenging the order detaining him for the session 1983-84 and claiming certain reliefs and obtained an interim mandamus from this Court on Mar. 22, 1985 whereby he was provisionally permitted to appear at the annual examination to be held in May 1985. It appears that he failed in some papers and was consequently permitted to appear at the supplementary examination, held in Sept./Oct., 1985. The case of the respondent University is that he was found resorting to the use of unfair means at the supplementary examination as a result of which his supplementary examination for the year 1984-85 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the annual examination for 1985-86.
4. It is in this background that the aforesaid writ petition No. 15201 of 1984 came up for final hearing before us on Mar. 17,1986. In the, petition, the sole point canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefit of the Sessional and Practical Examination as well as the Project Report already submitted by him even prior to the order whereby he was detained from appearing at the Final Examination because the shortage in attendance had resulted from the fact that during a substantial period of the 1983-84 session he had lost his vision on account of an unfortunate accident. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, had submitted that it being a case of re-admission to a new session, i.e. 1984-85, the petitioner could no fall back on the Sessional and Practical Examinations, etc. held for the 1983-84 session.
5. Without deciding these rival contentions on merits and, on a purely compassionate ground, we issued the above quoted directions based on a very fair and generous concession made by the learned Counsel for the University in the hope and trust that the petitioner would seize the opportunity offered to him and appear at the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86 and the University on its part would not insist on the petitioner's again appearing at the Sessional and Practical examination and submitting a fresh Project for the session 1984-85. Our hope was, however, belied. Instead of making use of that opportunity the petitioner was advised to launch on this course, namely, filing a contempt petition.
6. The contempt petition was presented on May 19, 1986 on the allegation that both the Vice-Chancellor as well as the Controller (Examinations) have wilfully disobeyed the directions of this Court issued on March 17, 1986. According to the petitioner, disobedience by the respondents consisted in their failure to declare the result of the petitioner's annual examination of 1984-85 and to grant him permission to appear at the 1985-86 annual examination commencing from May 9, 1986. A specific request was made by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor by his representation dated May 5, 1986 but the same was turned down by him as well as by the Controller (Examinations). Allegations were also made in the petition against the Vice-Chancellor and the Controller (Examinations) attributing to them remarks and comments derogatory to this Court. These allegations were, however, emphatically denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not rely on the same in course of his submissions before me. It is hence unnecessary to elaborate these submissions here.
7. The stand taken by the respondent-University in the couter-affidavit is that there was no direction by this Court under which the petitioner could claim the right to appear at the annual examination of 1985-86 commencing from May 9, 1986. The petitioner had under the orders of this Court been permitted to appear only at the supplementary examination of 1985-86 which was due in September/Oct., 1986. There was hence no breach of any directions of this Court directly or indirectly. Their case further is that the petitioner had appeared at the annual examination of 1985 under an interim mandamus of this Court but he had failed at that examination whereafter he appeared at the supplementary examination of 1984-85 held in 1985. At that supplementary examination the petitioner was found using unfair means as a result of which the said examination was cancelled and the petitioner was further debarred from appearing at the annual examination of 1985-86. Whil replying to the petitioner, the Controller of Examinations had clearly stated these facts and had informed the petitioner that as directed by the Court in its order dated March 17,1986, the Sessionals, Practicals and Project completed by him for the year 1983-84 shall be treated as the Sessionals, Practicals and Project for the session 1984-85. The Controller had also assured the petitioner that his result shall be declared for the 1984-85 session after he appears for the viva examination for the Project and Practicals and after he appears at the supplementary examination, 1985-86 (see Annexure3 to the counter-affidavit).
8. For the petitioner the main contention raised was that under the directions issued by this Court on Mar, 17,1986, the respondents were bound to declare the petitioner's result of the annual examination held in 1985 immediately and to permit him to appear at the annual examination for the session 1984-85 beginning from May 9,1986. It was urged that on a true and proper interpretation of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents were clearly obliged to declare the petitioner's result of the annual examination held in 1985 so that he could appear at the uncleared papers at the annual examination beginning from May 9, 1986. It was further submitted that the respondent-University had not filed any affidavit before this Court prior to March 17,1986 or even on that date stating that the petitioner's supplementary. examination had been cancelled on the ground of using unfair means and that further he had been debarred from appearing at the annual examination for the session 1984-85 scheduled to be held in May, 1986. Consequently, when this Court directed the respondent-University to declare the petitioner's result for the 1984-85 session after he had appeared at the supplementary examination it must have meant the annual examination for the 1984-85 session beginning in May, 1986 and not the supplementary examination due in Sept./Oct., 1986.
9. I find no merit in any of the petitioner's submissions. It is hardly necessary to stress that in order to justify an action in contempt, the petitioner must make out a clear and unambiguous case of disobedience or breach. Whether, therefore, an order or direction has been disobeyed or not must obviously be decided on the express terms of the order or direction, and not on what may be supposed to have been intended to be provided in the order. The language used in the Contempt of Courts Act is 'wilful disobedience'.
10. On its plain terms the respondent-University had been directed to declare the result of the petitioner for the 1984-85 session only after he had appeared at the viva voce examination for the Project and the Practicals as well as the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86, which was scheduled to be held only in Sept./Oct., 1986. It is totally wrong to suggest that this Court had directed the declaration of the result of some examination at which the petitioner had already appeared. No such inference can be drawn from the language of our order which was unambiguous. This was made further explicit in our order by the observation that the petitioner's result be declared 'after he appears at the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86 in the necessary papers in accordance with the rules applicable to supplementary examinations....
Further the reasons why this Court spoke of 'the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86' in its order dated Mar 17, 1986 was that the petitioner had been debarred from appearing at the annual examination of 1985-86 and the supplementary examination of 1984-85 had already been cancelled. Sri B.D. Agarwal, a respected Senior Advocate of this Court, who had appeared before us on March 17,1986 emphatically asserted before me that he had informed the Court on Mar. 17,1986 of the fact that the petitioner's supplementary examination of 1984-85 had been cancelled because of his having resorted to unfair means and he had been further debarred from appearing at the annual examination of 1985-86. I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting the accuracy of Sri Agarwal's statement. It is unnecessary to add that it is also borne out by the terms in which our order dt. March 17,1986 is couched. In fact, had it not been so, there would possibly be no occasion for making repeated reference to the term 'Supplementary Examination' in our order. The respondents were hence clearly right in taking the stand which they did.
11. In this view of the matter I have not the least hesitation in holding that the respondents have not disobeyed the orders of this Court, directly or even by implication.
12. I may also add that the only relief which we intended to confer on the petitioner was to relieve him from the necessity of having to go through the Sessionals, Practicals and Project already completed by him in the 1983-84 session over again for the 1984-85 session. It was for this reason that the University was directed to treat the petitioner's Sessionals, Practicals and Project towards the 1984-85 examination. No other concession or benefit was intended to be passed on to the petitioner. At any rate, it was not our intention to relieve the petitioner from the effects flowing from the cancellation of his supplementary examination held in 1985 and, his being debarred from appearing at the annual examination of 1985-86. He was, however, under our orders permitted to appear at the supplementary examination of 1985-86 in accordance with the applicable rules.
13. That leaves for consideration one more submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The contention was that unless the result of the annual examination of 1984-85 was declared and the petitioner was informed of the subjects in which he failed, he could not avail of the opportunity contemplated under our order dated Mar. 17,1986 permitting him to appear at the supplementary examination of 1985-86.
14. The argument is devoid of any substance. Apart from the fact that it has no direct relevance to the issue whether there has been any disobedience to the direction of this Court, it is noteworthy that the petitioner had already appeared at the supplementary examination of 1984-85 and it is impossible to believe that he appeared at that examination without knowing the subjects in which he had failed at the annual examination of the year 1984-85.
15. Before concluding I may add that it is unfortunate that instead of availing himself of the opportunity offered to the petitioner under our order dt. Mar. 17, 1986 by taking advantage of the Sessionals, Practicals and Project already completed by him during 1983-84 session, the petitioner should have been advised to indulge in fruitless and misconceived litigation by way of an action in contempt. A simple application for clarification addressed to this Court, if the petitioner at all had any doubt in his mind as to the true import of our order dt. Mar. 17, 1986, would have sufficed.
16. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The notices issued to the respondents by this Court are hereby discharged.