Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Vandana Rajoriya vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar on 11 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-1683-2017
(DR. VANDANA RAJORIYA Vs DR. HARI SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR)
18
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-01-2018
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior advocate with Shri T.K.
Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Sobha Menon, learned senior advocate with Ms. Smriti
Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to
sh 4/University e Heard on I.A. No. 17381/2017.
ad The petitioner has filed the present application for Pr amendment in the writ petition. It has been stated that the Committee was constituted by the Executive Council to a hy investigate into the question of eligibility of the petitioner and others. The Committee has submitted the report which ad apparently appears to be tainted with bias and something not M clearly explained in the report. It has further been submitted that the members of the Committee were working with a of biased mind against the certain persons. The observations of rt the Committee are ex facie malafide on the basis of the report ou submitted and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present application for impleading the members of the Committee as C respondents No. 7 to 10 as well as the petitioner also wants h to add para 5.21(D) making certain allegations against the ig members of the Committee. H Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the said amendment is necessary for just and proper decision of the case, therefore, the same be allowed. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents orally opposes the said application for amendment. She submits that the application for amendment has been filed with a intend to delay the proceedings as there is an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner. She further submits that the respondents have filed their reply way back and along with the reply the report of the Committee was filed. After filing of the reply the petitioner has already filed an application for amendment which was allowed on 13.07.2017 and at the time of filing of the first application for amendment, the petitioner should have taken this objection. However, the petitioner with a intend to delay the proceedings this application has been filed subsequently which deserves to be dismissed. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties on I.A. No. 17381/2017.
sh As per the settled law the Court should allow the amendment e application liberally. In the present case from the pleadings ad of the petition, it appears that certain allegations have been Pr made against the members of the Committee, therefore, it is necessary before passing any order to give an opportunity of a hearing to the members of the Committee. As per Order 6 hy Rule 17of the C.P.C., the Court may at any stage of the ad proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just M and proper necessary for the purpose of determining the real of questions in controversy between the parties. So far as, delay in filing this application is concerned, the application can be rt allowed by imposing some cost on the petitioner. ou Thus, I.A. No. 17381/2017 is allowed subject to payment of C cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be payable to the High Court h Legal Aid Services Committee. ig The amendment be incorporated within a period of three H working days.
The petitioner is also directed to pay P.F. within seven working days for service of notice on respondent Nos. 7 to 10 by Registered AD as well as by ordinary mode failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.
Notices be made returnable within a period of three weeks. List the matter in the week commencing 5.02.2018. In the meanwhile, interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2018.01.12 03:24:26 -08'00' e sh ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H