Allahabad High Court
Dr. Narbadeshwar Pandey vs Smt. Pratima Goel, Vice Chancellor, Dr. ... on 6 February, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7858
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2315 of 2024
Applicant :- Dr. Narbadeshwar Pandey
Opposite Party :- Smt. Pratima Goel, Vice Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University Ayodhya And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Pt. S. Chandra
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. The present contempt application has been preferred for alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2024. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-
"9. Since it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that representation has already been preferred by petitioner before the Vice Chancellor vide letter dated 12.12.2023, the same shall be treated as an appeal in terms of statute 15.05. The opposite party no. 3 i.e. Vice Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya (Faizabad) is directed to consider and decide petitioner's appeal in accordance with law and statutes within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority and after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as opposite party no. 7. This time limit shall be applicable in case final orders have not already been passed from petitioner's representation."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.248 of 2024, the Contempt Court has to look into or consider the issue of delay in taking decision by the respondent no.1. The relevant extract of judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 passed in special appeal is quoted herein below:-
"In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that once the appeal has been decided not once but twice under the orders of the contempt Court and if it is the case of the respondent that certain issues have not been decided then it should be raised before the writ Court, accordingly, we quash the observation/direction contained in the impugned judgement to this extent, however, so far as the question of delay in compliance is concerned, the same shall be open for consideration by the contempt Court.
Learned Single Judge may kindly now consider the aforesaid issue of delay in the contempt proceedings and thereafter consider as to whether it is a case where the appellant should be summoned and charges should be framed against him or not.
Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law.
Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent also says that he is only concerned with the delay in compliance and rest of the issues will be thrashed out by the writ Court."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the delay on the part of respondents was deliberate just to illegally permitted Dr. Abhay Kumar Singh to hold the charge of officiating Principal and despite the orders passed by the Chancellor in favour of the applicant, the charge was never given to the applicant, so the reason is obvious for delay and if there is deliberate delay, then the officer concerned is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act as per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar and others vs. Subhash Singh, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 430 and Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain and another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC296.
4. It is further submitted that the delay in taking decision was deliberate just for passing time till 01.10.2024 i.e the date of retirement of Dr Abhay Kumar Singh.
5. On the other hand, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the delay is not at all deliberate as the University has no role for giving or taking the officiating charge of the Principal of the aided institution affiliated with the University rather it is the Committee of Management, who is empowered, to take decision for handing and taking over the charge of the post of officiating Principal.
6. It is further submitted that the writ court vide its judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 directed the respondent no.1 to take decision on the representation of the applicant treating it as appeal within a period of six weeks. The said decision was communicated vide letter dated 28.02.2024 and six weeks period had expired on 14.04.2024.
7. It is further submitted that the delay is of four months after expiry of period of six weeks' period and for that an affidavit has already been filed tendering unconditional apology for the same.
8. It is also submitted that the Committee was constituted for determining the dispute of seniority and the Committee had fixed three dates i.e. 23.07.2024, 30.07.2024 and 02.08.2024 on which the applicant and other parties had appeared and after hearing them, report was submitted by the Committee on 02.08.2024 and within ten days, the representation/appeal of the applicant has been decided by passing an order dated 12.08.2024 in compliance of judgment of the writ court.
9. It is also submitted that when the charge was not given to the applicant, he had preferred a writ petition against the Committee of Management in which direction was issued to the Committee of Management for handing over the charge of the post of officiating Principal to the applicant. Thereafter the charge was given to the applicant so there is no interest of the University or the role of the University in handing or taking over the charge of officiating Principal. The aforesaid submission is not refuted by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. There is no doubt that the order of the Court has been complied with with a delay of about four months but in the facts and circumstances of the case it may be difficult to hold that the delay was willful or deliberate for the benefit of Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the officiating Principal. Also since taking over or handing over of charge of officiating Principal was a matter within the power of the Committee of Management. The fact, however, is that the respondent no.1 could decide the representation earlier as well thus there has been lapse on the part of the Vice Chancellor but to say categorically that it was willful or deliberate may not be possible. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the compliance affidavit bringing on record the order dated 12.08.2024 was filed on 12.08.2024 but that order was not accepted and Vice Chancellor was directed to revisit the order and pass a fresh order and fixed the case on 28.08.2024 which has been passed on 24.08.2024 accordingly within the time allowed and brought on record by filing a compliance affidavit. Therefore, it is submitted that the question of complying earlier order of the Court dated 21.02.2024 with delay is washed off. No doubt there is some force in this submission also. It may be deemed that by order dated 12.08.2024 the time originally granted stood extended, in any case the Vice Chancellor has also tendered unconditional apology, thus, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, the present case on facts stand on a different footing from the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
11. In view of discussion held above, the contempt application is dismissed but the Vice Chancellor may in future be careful and cautions in complying with the orders passed by the Court.
12. The contempt application is dismissed.
13. Notice, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 6.2.2025
Renu/-
