Hemant Kumar vs Union Of India And 10 Ors

Ajai Lamba, CJ

Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.B. Dey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4

and 6 to 11, i.e. IIT, Guwahati.

The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between

the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge.

Shri Hemant Kumar has preferred this writ appeal/intra-court appeal against decision dated 4th December, 2019 rendered in Writ Petition (C)

No.7558 of 2019, titled â€" Hemant Kumar Vs. Union of India and others.

It appears that a letter dated 9th September, 2019 came to be challenged before the Writ Court. The letter was issued by Joint Registrar, Academic

Affairs, IIT, Guwahati, informing the petitioner about the resolution of the Senate not to approve his reinstatement in M. Tech. Chemical Engineering

Programme.

The status of the petitioner as a student in M. Tech. Chemical Engineering Programme of IIT, Guwahati was terminated from the programme vide

the order dated 5th June, 2017 with immediate effect. The petitioner/appellant challenged the said order dated 5th June, 2017 vide the Writ Petition (C)

No.3920 of 2019.

The Writ Court vide the order dated 21st August, 2019 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to hold the meeting of the Senate

Committee within a period of four weeks to take a final call as regards restoration of studentship of the petitioner. It appears that accordingly, a

meeting the Senate Committee, IIT, Guwahati was held on 28th October, 2019. The Senate Committee unanimously resolved not to approve

reinstatement of the petitioner in M. Tech. Chemical Engineering Programme. The said resolution was communicated vide the letter dated 9th

September, 2019, which became the subject of adjudication in Writ Petition (C) No.7558 of 2019 (supra).

While dealing with the issue, the learned Writ Court in its wisdom, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Senate Committee to give a

personal hearing to the petitioner so that the petitioner could press his grievances more effectively. It was further provided that after hearing the

petitioner in person, the Senate Committee may take a decision.

The writ appeal was filed on 7th January, 2020.

It appears that in the meantime, the Senate meeting was convened on 28th January, 2020. Item No.2 was placed for discussion by the Senate. In

deference to decision rendered by the Writ Court dated 4th December, 2019, which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal, notice was given to

Hemant Kumar, the appellant, to appear and present his case.

The appellant Hemant Kumar, in terms of the impugned order dated 4th December, 2019, indeed appeared before the Senate and presented his case,

thereby accepting the order. After giving hearing to the appellant, the Senate Members unanimously resolved that termination of Hemant Kumar be

not revoked.

We find that although order dated 28th January, 2020 was passed and communicated to the writ appellant, however, the same was not brought on

record for consideration of the Court. Rather the official respondents have brought the order on record.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Senate having already rendered a decision in deference to order dated 4th December, 2019,

in which the appellant appeared and presented his case by accepting order dated 4th December, 2019, the appellant has no right to press this appeal.

On the second count, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the earlier decision of the Senate dated 28th August, 2019

communicated to the writ appellant vide the letter dated 9th September, 2019 had merged in the subsequent decision dated 28th January, 2020. In such

circumstances also, the appeal against order dated 4th December, 2019, rendered by the Writ Court would not be maintainable.

Learned counsel for the respondent authorities has drawn attention of the Court towards the language used by the writ appellant in the Memo of

Appeal. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards Page No.13 of the writ appeal, wherein the appellant has said â€" “However the appellant

didn’t used any sort of bullshit message before terminate on 5.6.2017, hence the affidavit-in-opposition is being irrelevant in the eye of law.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of the Court towards internal Page Nos.14 and 15, wherein the appellant in the

grounds has pleaded in the following terms â€"“(ii) For that the mid semester paper (backlog CL 502, Computer aided Numerical Method) would

had held on 16th Sept. 2019 till 28th November 2019, assuming appellant examination paper has already over, due to unscrupulous order passed by the

Learned Single Judge. So the appellant didn’t appear backlog paper, hence the impugn order liable to be set-aside and modify.â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention of the Court towards the nature of offending and un-parliamentary language used by

Hemant Kumar, the appellant, towards the authorities in various messages he sent.

We, however, in this proceeding choose to ignore the same, however, with liberty to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the

appellant in that regard separately.

Other than the offending language used, we find that there are hundreds of clerical and grammatical errors in the body of the appeal, which is

deprecated by this Court.

Be that as it may, we find that the grounds of appeal have been certified by the counsel Shri Pankaj Buragohain, who has signed the Memo of

Appeal. The language used in the Memo of Appeal in context of the impugned order, and otherwise is certainly offensive and clearly contemptuous.

The Court, however, chooses to ignore that aspect of the matter in view of peculiar circumstances the judiciary is going through these days. However,

in the later part of the order, we would be imposing exemplary costs to be recovered from the appellant.

Having considered the fact that vide order dated 4th December, 2019, rendered by learned Single Judge, which has been impugned in this appeal,

the Senate Committee was directed to give personal hearing to the appellant Hemant Kumar. The appellant availed of that opportunity and appeared

before the Senate Committee, whereupon resolution dated 28th January, 2019, has been passed.

Having gone through the resolution, we find that it has been passed in letter and spirit of order dated 4th December, 2019. In such circumstances, we

find no reason to interfere in writ appellate jurisdiction against order dated 4th December, 2019, rendered by learned Single Judge.

By virtue of appearing and presenting his case before the Senate Committee, the appellant accepted order dated 4th December, 2019. In such

circumstance, he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate and challenge the same order in this jurisdiction.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

We further impose costs in the sum of Rs.35,000/- which be recovered from the appellant to be deposited with Assam State Legal Services

Authority within thirty days from today. In case the deposit is not made, as directed by virtue of this order, we give a direction to the District

Magistrate concerned to recover the cost amount as arrears of land revenue.

Let a copy of the order be released under signatures of the Court Master.