A division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe dismissed a special appeal filed by a medical practitioner to interfere in a Writ Petition filed by him seeking the return of his original documents submitted in his previous institute.
Facts:
The Petitioner is a medical student who pursued MBBS course in Government Medical College, Haldwani. He was charged subsidized fee in liew of the undertaking given by him that he would compulsorily serve the State Government for five years after the completion of his degree, in default of which he would have to deposit an amount of ₹30,00,000/- with interest. However, after the completion of his degree, the Petitioner did not served the government and inquired about the payment of the default amount. In the meantime, he also appeared in NEET PG and secured an admission in Government Medical College, Jabalpur in the course of M.D. Radiodiagonosis.
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, WP (M/S) No. 771 of 2016, challenging the condition of the bond – however, he unconditionally withdrew it later. He again filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2316 of 2022, for the same cause of action. Under this petition, the court granted an adjournment to the respondent on 13.10.2022 to file their counter affidavit. It is against this order that the Petitioner has preferred a special appeal. His argument is that the adjournment of the proceedings in the Writ Petition to the adjourned date, i.e. 25.11.2022, would make his petition infructuous since he has to urgently present his original documents to Government Medical College, Jabalpur.
Observations:
The court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the writ petition is still pending. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1647 of 2022, which he withdrew unconditionally on 29.07.2022. The court failed to understand how, on the same cause of action, the second writ petition could be maintained. Even otherwise, the appellant did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the bond. His conduct appeared to be dishonest, and the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by a person whose conduct is found to be dishonest. The Court is not obliged to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of such a person.
Decision:
The court dismissed the special appeal filed by the Petitioner.
Case: Gulab Singh Patel v State of Uttarakhand & Others
Citation: Special Appeal No. 347 of 2022
Date: 20.10.2022
Coram:Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi
Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
