AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal against an interim order of an Hon''ble Single Judge dated 8.11.2006. By that order affidavits were called for and the matter was directed to be fixed in the week commencing 4.12.2006.
The commencement of that week will be from Monday week.
The interim order is very short and it is an unreasoned order of refusal of interim relief to the writ petitioner who is also the appellant before us.
Before the 8th of November, the matter had once come up before his Lordship and records had been summoned, which were produced both on behalf of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University and its Vice Chancellor, both of whom have been represented before us by Mr. Khanna.
According to Mr. Singh, who put forward the case of the appellants, the previous Committee of Management was elected in 2003. It had term of office at least until October, 2006. That without taking the appellants into confidence, the Vice Chancellor appointed one Dr. Sharma as the so called independent Supervisor at the instance of the Supervisor, a learned Advocate, who had been designated as such by the General Body, as per the version of the respondents. It is not at all admitted by the appellants that the Advocate Supervisor had been chosen by and on behalf of the appellants also.
On the basis of the report of Dr. Sharma, it seems that on the 18th of October, 2006, the results of the elections supported by the respondents group were forwarded to the Vice Chancellor, these were apparently examined on the same date and approval was granted also on the same date by the must cryptic of orders, practically a single word order ''approved''.
The appellants submit that they had previously intimated the Vice Chancellor as to the possibility of dispute and that notice to them was necessary. They were not heard at all and no such question arose in the approval process which was over in one day. The papers which are relied upon by the respondents are Dainik Hamara Yug and Dainik Hindu. These might be having some circulation in Meerut by those are not at all well known papers. The respondents claim to have served notice to all the members of the General Body but it was not clear whether such service was under registered post or only under certificate of posting. Usually, if it is by registered post, the stand is taken by the parties serving that it is by registered post and it is binding and in favour of the parties.
The respondents submit that the appellants'' case is not that clear and above board, that the appellants wanted to have a strangle hold on the Committee and thus took no steps for initiating the 2006 elections, even though they well knew that their term would be over in October, 2006. The University, which has to be assumed to be an independent body, unless proved otherwise, has clearly supported the group of the respondents. They are functioning now. The communication of the Deputy Registrar dated 19.10.2006 made to the appellants on the basis of the Vice Chancellor''s approval dated 18.10.2006 is an official communication and there is no reason why it should not prevail until the matter is heard out before the first Hon''ble Judge on affidavits.
Affidavits have been filed and the week when the matter is due to be listed is just one week away. At this stage, if the Court of appeal interferes then the Single Judge''s discretion might be interfered with.
We are of the respectful opinion that since the matter was being adjourned for a month and there were repeated requests for passing of an interim order made by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Singh himself in the Court below on more days than one, the refusal of the interim order should have contained some reasons.
In any event, since the matter has been argued out before us, we have to give some reasons.
It appears prima facie to us that the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor was a wholly one sided affair without observing the basic modicum of the rules of natural justice. As on date, no confidence is inspired either by the independent observer appointed by the General Body i.e. the learned Advocate, who is supported by the respondents, nor by Dr. Sharma who supported the respondents'' case fully and totally.
The Committee of Management of 2003, although they got their approval only from the Deputy Registrar and not from the Vice Chancellor, which is the requirement of the law, had functioned for three years and that is the undisputed fact. When an ouster is made by an order without hearing, the parties who are entitled to be heard by any standards, and that order is complained against, there have to be good reasons why no interim order staying that order, which had been passed by hearing only one side, is allowed as a relief.
Mr. Khare, appearing for the respondents made a conditional submission that if we were minded to pass an order of stay of the order of the Vice Chancellor, then and in that event, his client would be agreeable to have the matter remitted to the Vice Chancellor for a fresh order being passed on hearing both sides. No concession was made at all with regard to the holding of fresh elections and (sic) which were initiated by the appointment of an Advocate observer in the month of August, 2006.
The conditional submission had this difficulty for us that before we pronounce the judgment, we could not tell parties how the judgment would go and thus the submission would have to be made after the judgment was over, and this is simply not permissible.
As such, the impugned order dated 8.11.2006 is set aside; there will be a stay of operation of the order of communication of the Deputy Registrar dated 19.10.2006 as well as of the order of approval of the Vice Chancellor dated 18.10.2006 until further orders of Court.
Our order and observations are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ matter and will in no manner fitter the discretion of the Hon''ble Single Judge before whom the parties will go back in the week commencing 4.12.2006. The appeal is therefore allowed without any order as to costs.