Uttarakhand High Court
Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand University vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 September, 2019
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 891 of 2019
Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand University ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2878 of 2019
Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand University ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Common Judgment
Dated: 23rd September, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) This intra-Court appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge deferring hearing of the Writ Petition till a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Mere deferral of hearing, of the Writ Petition, would not constitute a judgment against which alone an intra-Court appeal would lie.
2. Both Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would submit that, instead, the Writ Petition itself be heard and decided by this Court.
3. The appellant-writ petitioner's grievance is that a section of students have taken law into their own hands, and have forcibly put locks on the gate of the University, paralyzing the functioning of the University 2 itself; and, while an F.I.R. was no doubt lodged, the law and order machinery of the State has failed to take action, and provide necessary police protection, to enable the University to function smoothly.
4. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, would state that, in case the appellant-writ petitioner makes any such request, the Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal (third respondent) shall examine and take necessary action thereupon in accordance with law.
5. Suffice it, in such circumstances, to dispose of the Writ Petition itself permitting the appellant-writ petitioner to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police (third respondent). Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that such a representation would be submitted within two days from today. In case any such representation is made, the Superintendent of Police (third respondent) shall examine the said representation and take action forthwith, in accordance with law, with utmost expedition and, in any event, within one week from the date of receipt of the appellant-writ petitioner's representation.
6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for police protection, as these are all matters for the Superintendent of Police (third respondent) to consider and act in accordance with law.
7. Both the Special Appeal and the Writ Petition are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
8. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 23.09.2019 23.09.2019 Rahul