Uttarakhand High Court
All Saint'S College Society vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others ... on 13 August, 2012
Author: Tarun Agarwala
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1173 of 2011
All Saint's College Society, Nainital through its
Secretary and two others ..........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Opp. Parties
Mr. A.D. Saunders, Advocate with Sri Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the
petitioners.
Mr. Avtar Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief
Holder, present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi and Sushil Mishra,
Advocates, present for the respondent no.4.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Writ petition no. 1173 of 2011 is being considered as leading petition along with other writ petition no. 1040 (MS) of 2011 and writ petition no. 1113 (MS) of 2011.
Before the hearing of all the writ petition could begin, Sri B.D. Upadhyay, the learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vikas Pande, Advocate, submitted that another writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 should also be tagged along with these petitions and may be heard with this bunch of writ petitions. This petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 is listed today in the court under Chapter 12 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
The office report shows that steps has not been taken to serve respondent no. 5. However, a photocopy of the first page of the notice has been shown indicating that notice on behalf of respondent no. 5 has been served to Sri Vishal Kumar, Advocate, who is also present in the Court. Consequently, the court finds that all the respondents in writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 are served. But no counter affidavit has been filed.
Sri B.D. Upadhyay, the learned Senior Counsel, present for the petitioners, submitted that in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, the petitioners had raised an objection by filing an application dated 08.05.2010 (Annexure No. 33 to the writ petition) inspite of which, the Deputy Registrar has not considered their application and has passed the impugned orders dated 28th March, 2011 and 7th April, 2011. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 in writ petition no. 1459 2 (MS) of 2012 have unanimously raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the respondents, the petitioners have no locus standi, as the petitioners have never managed the Institution in question and consequently has no cause of action to question the impugned orders. It was also urged that the said petitioner was not a party in the proceeding before the court below and that the petitioner had never approached the Deputy Registrar by filing any application. It was also urged that the impugned orders are of March, 2011 and April, 2011 whereas the writ petition was filed in July, 2012 and that no explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition has been given and consequently the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they were unaware of the impugned orders and the writ petition was filed at the earliest opportune moment. Initially an impleadment application was filed in one of the writ petition, which was rejected with a liberty to file a separate writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds that there appears to be an application dated 08.05.2010, filed before the Deputy Registrar. The question is whether the said application has been filed before the Deputy Registrar or not which has to be verified and consequently, the Court directs the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 to file a counter affidavit in writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 within a period of two weeks indicating therein as to whether such application dated 08.05.2012 was actually filed by the petitioner and if filed, what action on that application has been taken by the Deputy Registrar.
The explanation given by the petitioner for the delay appears to be sketchy and, consequently, an opportunity is given to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the writ petition, for which a supplementary affidavit may be filed within two weeks. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability and delay would be considered on the next date and it would be open to all the respondents in this writ petition to file a counter affidavit, if they so desire. The Court also directs the Additional Advocate General to produce the record of Deputy Registrar, Haldwani on the next date.
3Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed today in writ petition no. 1113 (MS) of 2011 is taken on record.
This order will govern in all the writ petitions.
It is made clear that on the next date, the matter would be heard and decided on merit on a day-to-day basis for which the Court fixes 20th September, 2012. If on the said date, the hearing is not completed for any reason, the hearing would continue on the next date. In the meantime, it is open to any of the parties in any of the writ petitions to complete the affidavits, if they so desire.
Interim order, passed in any of the connected writ petition, is extended till the next date of listing.
Connect with writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 with the leading petition no. 1173 (MS) of 2011.
(Tarun Agarwala, J.) 13.08.2012 ML