Patanjali Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Evam Anusandhan Sansthan vs Jaydeep Kant & Others

Ravi Malimath, J

There is a delay of 540 days in filing each one of these appeals. For the purposes of convenience, the facts as narrated in Special Appeal No. 103

of 2020 would be narrated.

All these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2018. Challenging the said order, respondent no. 4

before the learned Single Judge has filed these appeals.

The reason assigned for the delay is that after the disposal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was advised to await the

decision of the committee rather than assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He was advised that as the decision of the committee would

be a separate cause of action and, if required, could be challenged in an appropriate proceeding. Subsequently, the committee heard and disposed off

the applications by its order dated 21.04.2019 and fixed the interim fee for private colleges in the State prospectively for the year 2019-20. It has

declined to examine the earlier application of the appellant. Since this Hon’ble Court has ordered that the fee fixation will only be prospective,

therefore, the appellant did not assail the judgment earlier on the bona fide advice that the committee would decide its application for fee revision, etc.

The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to the non-compliance of

the order of the learned Single Judge, a contempt petitions was filed in Contempt Petition No. 655 of 2019, which is pending consideration. Therefore,

only because the contempt petition has been filed, the instant appeals have been filed by the appellant. Therefore, it is only to save themselves that

these appeals have been filed. There is no merit in these appeals.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The reasons assigned for the delay in challenging the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge constitutes sufficient cause. The

appellant does not gain anything by causing any delay in challenging the impugned order. Even though, it is a fact that the appeals have been filed after

initiation of the proceedings for contempt, it cannot be said that it is the sole ground on which the appeals have been filed. The reasons assigned by the

appellant for the delay in filing the appeals, in our view, constitutes sufficient cause. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a

catena of judgments, that the substantive rights of the parties would have to be considered and they cannot be thwarted on the grounds of mere delay,

especially when the delay has been adequately explained. For the aforesaid reasons, applications no. 4175 of 2020, 4149 of 2020, 4151 of 2020, 4167

of 2020 and 4165 of 2020 seeking condonation of delay are allowed. Delay in filing these appeals is condoned. Appeals are admitted.

Shri Kailash Vasudev, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel, primarily contends that the order of the learned Single

Judge is erroneous on the ground of non-consideration of material placed before the Court. In the very first sentence of the order of the learned Single

Judge, the counter affidavit as filed by the appellants has been noted.

The learned senior counsel takes us through the counter affidavit which has been filed. We have considered the same. The counter affidavit

includes the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a similarly placed matter which has been filed along with the counter affidavit at annexure 1,

namely, the order passed in the Writ Petition No. 335 (MS) of 2016 by the learned Single Judge dated 14.7.2016. The said order was challenged in

Special Appeal No. 214 of 2016 before the learned Division Bench of this Court and the copy of the order dated 7.9.2017 has also been annexed as

annexure 2. This was the material that had significance to the instant petitions. However, the learned Single Judge, while considering the petitions has

made no reference to these facts in the impugned order. Therefore, it is pleaded that the appeals be allowed with a request to the learned Single Judge

to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the appellants.

The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the subject-matter involved in the earlier writ petitions and the

instant writ petitions are quite different. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has thought it appropriate not to rely on the same. Hence, it is pleaded

that the appeals be dismissed.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that an appropriate interference is called for. Having considered the counter affidavit

filed by the appellants, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge should have considered the said counter affidavit. The reading of the

impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not indicate that either the counter affidavit or its annexures have been considered by the learned

Single Judge. Considering the counter affidavit and the annexures is entirely the discretion of the learned Single Judge to opine on the same. However,

primarily, non-consideration of the pleadings, in our considered view, would render the order of the learned Single Judge liable to be interfered with.

Even though various contentions have been advanced on the merits of the writ petitions, we do not find it appropriate to consider such contentions.

It is needless to state that all contentions of the respective parties are open to be urged before the learned Single Judge for his kind determination. It

would suffice to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be reconsidered afresh.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed. The common order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.

2290 of 2018 is set aside. The learned Single Judge is requested to rehear the writ petitions on merit and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in

accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

The appeals are disposed off accordingly.

Pending applications stand disposed off.