AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, learned Standing
Counsel for the first respondent, Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand and Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Suyash Pant, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
The order passed by us in Special Appeal No.822 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019, and the subsequent order passed by us in Special Appeal No.939 of
2019 and WPMS No.2893 of 2019 dated 16.10.2019 (the later order was passed following the order passed by us in Special Appeal No.941 of 2019
and WPMS No.2849 of 2019 dated 16.10.2019) has been, allegedly, violated by the order impugned in the writ petition. While we find considerable
force in the submission of Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, that the said orders have been violated, we refrain from expressing a conclusive
opinion since the writ petition is still pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge. In any event, the question whether the respondents have
willfully and deliberately violated the aforesaid orders of the Division Bench can only be examined on the contempt jurisdiction of this Court being
invoked by the appellant-writ petitioner.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, would submit that, while the appellant-writ petitioner undoubtedly has the
remedy of invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, the entire process of adjudication of the contempt petition would take time; and, in any
event, this Court can only punish the respondents, and may not grant the appellant-writ petitioner the relief, sought for in the writ petition, which is to
admit students for the academic year 2019-20; and it is in such circumstances that the appellant-writ petitioner was constrained to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court by filing WPMS No.3714 of 2019; and he has now preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge
on 11.12.2019 dismissing the interlocutory application.
We understand the anxiety of the appellant-writ petitioner that any delay, in the writ petition being heard and decided, may well result in their being
deprived of admitting students for the academic year 2019-20, since winter vacations are due to commence from 11.01.2020, and this Court would be
closed for one month thereafter, till it reopens on 10.02.2020.
The learned Single Judge has adequately safeguarded the appellant-writ petitioners’ interests and, while granting the respondents time to file
their counter affidavit, has directed that the matter be listed on 08.1.2020 in the daily list.
As it appear to us, prima facie, that the order impugned in the writ petition may be contrary to the earlier orders passed by this Court, we restore
the interlocutory application to file, and request the learned Single Judge to hear and decide either the interlocutory application or the writ petition itself
when the matter is listed before him on 08.01.2020. We also request the learned Single Judge, in case the respondents do not file their counter
affidavit by then, to also consider whether the interlocutory application can be heard and decided without deferring hearing beyond winter vacations.
With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is disposed of. No costs.