Delhi High Court
Aswathi A Nair vs Jawaharlal Nehru University on 12 October, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: October 12, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 7915/2016, CM No. 32754/2016
ASWATHI A NAIR
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia,
Mr.Vaibhav Vats and
Ms.Soumya Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ginny J. Routray, Adv.
with Ms. Anusha Ashok, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is
prayed that this Hon‟ble Court in public interest may be
pleased to:
1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction thereby quashing and setting aside the report of
the High Level Enquiry Committee set up by the
respondent vide Office Order No. 202/CP/2016 dated
22.8.2016 of the Vice Chancellor punishing the petitioner,
and all other proceedings consequential to and arising out
of the report of the High Level Enquiry Committee of the
respondent University;
2. award the petitioner the costs of these proceedings;
3. Pass such further order or orders as this Hon‟ble
Court may deem fit."
FACTS:-
2. The facts as averred in the writ petition are, on February 09,
2016 a poetry reading event was organized. The poster said "A
Country Without a Post Office". As per Statute 32(2), the University
has a proctorial system where administration of students related
matters pertaining to acts of indiscipline are delegated to the Chief
Proctor. He/she is assisted by two additional proctors; one of the
proctors is a woman. On February 11, 2016, a proctorial inquiry was
set up and an appeal was made to all concerned, especially students to
submit all audio/video evidences regarding the incident by February
26, 2016. On February 11, 2016, the Vice Chancellor set up a High
Level Enquiry Committee superseding the Proctorial Enquiry
Committee. The HLEC was given the deadline of February 22, 2016
for submitting the report. The HLEC submitted a preliminary report,
which was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and the Chief Proctor was
asked to implement the recommendations. On February 12, 2016,
HLEC sent a letter directing the petitioner to appear before the HLEC
on February 15, 2016. On February 16, 2016, the HLEC sent second
notice to the petitioner directing her to appear before the HLEC on
February 18, 2016. On February 18, 2016, the HLEC sent third notice
to the petitioner directing her to appear before the HLEC on February
26, 2016. On February 23, 2016 the Vice Chancellor had approved
appointment of two more Members in HLEC. On March 11, 2016, the
HLEC submitted its report. On March 15, 2016, a show cause notice
was issued to the students wherein they were directed to file reply by 4
pm on March 16, 2016. Deadline to file reply was increased by few
days till March 18, 2016. On March 18, 2016, reply was filed by the
students, wherein they had sought that the copy of the complaint,
details of the witnesses and their depositions, list of documents,
proof/evidence/findings, if any relied on and all documents,
statements, and material, if any, relied upon by, during the course of
the enquiry, be provided, in order to enable them to file a detailed
written response. Thereafter, sufficient time may be granted to make
an effective response to the findings. On April 25, 2016, the Chief
Proctor after obtaining the approval of the Vice Chancellor issued
order holding the petitioner guilty under Clause 3, of category-II sub-
category (xxv), whereby the VC imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/- on the
petitioner. A writ petition is filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No.
4392/2016 wherein this Court passed an order holding that the office
order dated April 25, 2016 shall not be given effect to until the appeal
filed by the petitioner is decided. On August 22, 2016, order is passed
in the appeal upholding the fine of Rs.20,000/- that has been imposed
by HLEC on the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS:-
3. It is the submission of Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned counsel
for the petitioner, post the events of February 09, 2016, the
Respondent set up a 'proctorial enquiry' to enquire into the allegedly
seditious slogans raised during this event. However, this enquiry was
superseded by the Vice Chancellor, who set up a "High Level Enquiry
Committee". The students identified by the HLEC sent a
representation to the Committee, challenging its constitution and also
requested that the findings, charges, and the purported evidence be
shared with them. The HLEC failed to respond to any of these
requests. As per the HLEC recommendations, the Petitioner was found
guilty of (a) giving undertaking in the false pretext to hold Poetry
Reading „A Country without Post Office‟ at Sabarmati Dhaba on
February 9, 2016 from 5 pm to 7.30 pm; (b) "lending her name in the
poster titled "Against the Brahmical collective conscience! Against the
judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt..." in the name of
cultural evening thus arousing communal and caste feelings" and was
imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In order to protest the unfair manner in
which the Petitioner, among other students, was punished by the
Respondent, some students of the University went on an indefinite
hunger strike, followed by a mass hunger strike by some teachers of
the University. The Petitioner subsequently, approached this Court for
quashing the aforementioned office order. This Court held that the
Office Order will not be given effect until disposal of the appeal filed
by the Petitioner before the Vice Chancellor. The decision of the Chief
Proctor was upheld and the Petitioner was directed to deposit the sum
of Rs.20,000/- as fine. According to Ms. Rajkotia, the petitioner has
been subjected to an enquiry which was in violation of the principles
of natural justice. Any administrative inquiry devoid of the adherence
to these principles does not stand. She refers to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in AK Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150
and State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. AIR 1967
SC 1269.
4. It is the submission of Ms. Malavika Rajkotias, that the
impugned action of the respondent is bad for the following reasons:-
A. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The principles of natural justice have been violated at every step of the
enquiry undertaken by the Respondent. The enquiry process suffered
from the following lacunae:
a. Biased Enquiry
5. The appellate authority is the Vice Chancellor whose approval
had been granted for imposing the punishment under Office Order
148/CP/2016 dated April 25, 2016. The Vice Chancellor was already
prejudiced against the Petitioner and was consequently incapable of
appreciating evidence from an unbiased perspective. The principle of
Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" means that no one should be
a judge in his own cause is applicable in this case. She referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (1978) AIR
597 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court
has held that administrative action shall be held in a manner which is
patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice. In the
instant factual matrix, it is clear that the appellate authority is the Vice
Chancellor whose approval had been granted for imposing the
punishment. As such, the Vice Chancellor cannot be the appellate
authority as he was already prejudiced against the petitioner and
would have been incapable of appreciating the evidence from an
unbiased perspective.
b. Confrontation of Evidence
6. The Respondent failed to provide the Petitioner with copies of
all statements and evidence collected by the High Level Enquiry
Committee and consequently used by the Appellate Authority. The
Respondent provided the Petitioner with a series of haphazardly
compiled documents which were completely irrelevant and did not
prove any of the charges made against the Petitioner. The Respondent
has however, used these statements to level serious and false charges
against the Petitioner. She referred to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case reported as (1955) AIR 65 Dhakeshwari Cotton
Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax. In denying the Petitioner the
opportunity to examine the statements and documents collected by the
HLEC, the Respondent has denied the Petitioner of a fair opportunity
making the enquiry process arbitrary and therefore illegal.
c. Cross examination
7. According to Ms. Rajkotia, the Petitioner has also not been
given the opportunity to cross examine persons or test the veracity of
the persons examined by the committee and to lead evidence in her
defence. This clearly vitiates the process adopted by the Respondent.
Clause (5) of Section 35(2) of the Statutes of the University clearly
states that a cross examination of the accused and the complainant is
to be conducted in the proceedings conducted as part of a proctorial
enquiry. This opportunity has not been given to the petitioner in the
instant case.
d. Notice
8. In addition to all of the lapses in the decision making process
the Petitioner was not given notice about the proceedings which the
Respondent undertook to punish the Petitioner. She referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagarjuna Construction Company
Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2008 (14) SCR 859.
B. Non-Application of Mind
9. The order passed is itself flawed in many respects. The
imposition of the same penalty on all concerned students barring two,
in spite of huge differences in the acts that they have been held guilty
of, reflects lack of application of mind as well as a complete ignorance
of the principles of sentencing that an administrative body entrusted
with holding an enquiry must be aware of. Moreover, while the
Appellate Authority has limited itself to the question of quantum of
punishment, it has failed to provide any reasons for the punishment
imposed. The fact that the orders passed against all the students were
in boilerplate language furthers the factum of lack of application of
mind by the Appellate Authority. She referred to the judgments in the
case of Commissioner of Police v.Ghordandas 1952 SC 16 and
D'Souza v. State of Bombay 1956 SCR 382.
C. Application of Patently Illegal University Rules
10. The Respondent has punished the Petitioner under rules which
are illegal and void. The Petitioner's alleged acts have been classified
as a Category II misconduct falling under clause (xxv), which reads,
"Any other act which may be considered by the V.C. or any other
competent authority to be an act of violation of discipline and
conduct." This provision is too vague and wide. It can encompass any
act of a student, and should therefore be considered void. Clause (10)
of Statute 32(5) of the Statutes of the University state that the Vice
Chancellor shall make the final decisions in any enquiry and shall
approve the punishment imposed by the enquiry committee. Clause
(12) of Statute 32(5) of the Statutes of the University state that the
Vice Chancellor shall also be the appellate authority. Under these
provisions, the Vice Chancellor is required to be involved in the
process of enquiry at the first instance. However, he is also required to
sit in appeal over the same matter. This is in violation of the basic
principle that a person cannot sit in appeal against their own order.
D. Violation of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression
11. According to Ms. Rajkotia, the order passed by the HLEC and
later confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not only violative of the
Principles of Natural Justice but also deprives the Petitioner of her
right to protest an activity to raise political issues which is her
constitutional right under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India,
1950. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Govt of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, AIR
2016 SC 3808 wherein it was held that the right to peacefully protest
is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The
involvement of the Petitioner in the event held at the Sabarmati Dhaba
on 9th February 2016 was peaceful. The role played by her in the said
event cannot be construed to be disruptive or giving rise to caste and
communal feelings. She referred to the judgment of this Court in
Amritshava Kamal v. Jawaharlal Nehru University 2007 (99) DRJ
528.
12. She stated, the past conduct of the Respondent is reflective of
the fact that there exists a tendency in the Respondent to hold inquiries
in a mala fide manner, sidelining the interests of the students. In the
abovementioned case, it was found that the Respondent had not
provided the Petitioner with opportunity or notice before the inquiry
against the Petitioner. In support of this submission, Ms. Rajkotia
referred to the judgment of Flora Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru
University, MANU/DE/3042/2012.
13. On the other hand, Ms. Ginny Routray, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit, the Petitioner was given ample opportunity
to appear and depose before the Enquiry Committee along with the
liberty to carry materials and evidences in her defense at the stage of
Enquiry, Show Cause Notice and Appeal. The Petitioner failed to
respond to the first notice dated February 12, 2016 wherein she was
asked to appear before the Committee on February 15, 2016.
Subsequently, a second notice was issued on February 16, 2016 asking
her to appear before the Committee on February 18, 2016. A third
notice was served to the Petitioner on February 18, 2016 asking her to
appear before the committee on February 26, 2016, however, the
Petitioner abstained herself from appearing before the committee and
clearing her stand. She submitted, the Petitioner on March 02, 2016
addressed a letter to the HLEC wherein she stated that-
This is in response to the third notice from high level
enquiry committee dated 18.02.2016 with reference no.
HLEC/JNU/2016/2139 that I received by speed post on
22.02.2016 at my permanent address in Kerala. It was
stated in the letter that it is the third notice asking me to
appear before the enquiry committee on 26.02.2016. Since I
was out of Delhi from 13th February, I could not collect the
first two notices that were sent in my hostel and centre
address. I was out of Delhi from 13 February and is
currently still at home in kerala due to some very sever
medical emergency..........
In the circumstances following the 9th February an
extremely volatile situation has been created both inside and
outside the campus which was resulted in extreme mental
and physical stress for me........ I feel insecure because the
prevailing atmosphere in JNU, and city and indeed the
country is not conductive to a proper and fir investigation,
making depositions and statements without fear
impossible..........
14. According to her, all 3 notices were dispatched via the Central
Dispatch of the University which is an independent department of the
University. The notices were served at all her known address
including her Hostel room, permanent address and email-id. Further,
as per the Hostel Manual of the University concerning Norms
governing Hostel Life Chapter 2, Clause 2.5.3, states that-"A resident
who wishes to stay out late or remain absent overnight shall inform
the warden concerned in the prescribed form". However, there was
no intimation on behalf of the Petitioner that she would not be
available in the hostel from February 13, 2016 onwards, whereas the
first notice was sent on February 12, 2016. Hence, the notices are
deemed to be served. She submitted, the Petitioner only returned to
campus on March 14, 2016 as stated in the Rejoinder however, she did
not try to contact the authorities on her return let alone even inform
them as to when she would be returning to campus in letter dated
March 02, 2016. She submitted, lack of concern on part of the
Petitioner and therefore the HLEC proceedings were disregarded by
her. Thus, the Petitioner herself lost the opportunity to appear before
the committee and clear her stand. Furthermore, Ms. Rautray
submitted, the Petitioner feeling unsafe within the campus is not a
viable excuse since the Respondent had taken steps to ensure the
safety and tight security for all the students within the campus, in fact
even morning walkers were prohibited to enter the campus. Also, the
Petitioner was not even in campus to fear for her safety. It is thus,
evident that the Petitioner deliberately avoided appearing before the
committee and made baseless excuses not to do so. It does not
corroborate the Petitioner‟s statement regarding the medical
emergency for which she had to leave for Kerala. Further, in her letter
the Petitioner neither addressed her involvement in the event nor tried
to clear her stand.
15. According to Ms. Routray, a Show Cause Notice dated March
14, 2016 was issued to the Petitioner which stated that-
"As per the High Level Enquiry Committee findings, you
(Ms. Ashwathi A. Nair, Registration Number: 20981,
Enrolment No: 11/4C/MI/002, Year of Admission: 2011,
M.Phil/Ph.D. Student, Centre for African Studies, School of
International Studies, JNU, New Delhi) have been found
guilty on the following account under the Clause 3,
Category II of Rules and discipline and proper conduct of
students of JNU.
(xxv) Any other act which may be considered by the VC or any
other competent authority to be an act of violation of
discipline and conduct
The Show Cause Notice further asked the Petitioner to explain why
disciplinary action should be not initiated against her for indulging in
the above mentioned acts. Ms. Routray submitted, the Petitioner was
asked to submit her reply to the Chief Proctor‟s Office latest by March
16, 2015, 17:00 hrs, which was later extended till March 18, 2016
failing which it would be presumed that the Petitioner has nothing to
say in her defense and the office would proceed further in the matter.
A copy of HLEC report was also conveyed to the Petitioner which
clearly outlined the act and conduct of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
responded to the Show Cause Notice on March 18, 2016 wherein she
stated that-
The composition of the committee itself has been questioned
by both JNUTA and JNUSU, for being non-representative
and biased. Despite the inclusion of two additional
members at a later stage, there are no SC/ST
representatives on the committee.
This is apart from the fact that the unseemly haste and total
disregard of any rules of natural justice, that vitiate the
constitution of the HLEC, its proceedings and its
"report"....
I am deeply disturbed by such a non-specific, vague and
general show cause notice that seems to have been issued
for no reason other than a plan to rope me along with other
students into an orchestrated controversy to deter us from
taking vocal position on any issues that arise in the
university.
16. According to Ms. Routray, there is no Rule or Statute of the
Respondent University requires the composition of the Committee to
have SC/ST representation. Further, the Petitioner cannot claim that
there was a disregard of the Principles of Natural Justice since the
Petitioner was served with 3 notices to appear on 3 different dates yet
the Petitioner chose to ignore them and not appear before the
Committee. She submitted that the Petitioner without having appeared
before the Committee cannot claim that the principles of natural
justice have not been followed by the Respondents. The Petitioner
herself failed to avail the opportunity given to her and thus, there was
no violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play.
17. The respondent subsequently on April 25, 2016, after more than
a month, passed on office order wherein it was stated that-
With reference to the 9 February 2016 incident of JNU
campus, the High Level Enquiry Committee (HLEC) has
found Ms. Aswathi a. Nair (Registration Number- 20980,
Enrolment No: 11/4C/MI/002, Year of Admission: 2011,
M.Phil/Ph.D. Student, Centre of African Studies, School of
International Studies and a r/o. Room No.63, Shipra Hostel)
guilty on the following counts.
The university 'Rules and discipline and proper conduct of
students of JNU', Clause 3- „Categories of misconduct and
indiscipline‟, Category-II, Sub- Category (xxv) prohibits
„Any other act which may be considered by the VC or any
other competent authority to be an act of violation of
discipline and conduct‟.
As per the HLEC recommendation, Ms. Aishwarya
Adhikari has been found guilty of
a) Giving undertaking in the false pretext to hold a
"Poetry Reading- A Country without A Post Office"
at Sabarmati Dhaba on 9 February 2016 from 5.00
pm to 7.30 pm
b) Lending her name in the poster titled "Against the
Brahmical collective conscience! Against the
judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool
Bhatt....." in the name of Cultural Evening thus
arousing communal and caste feelings.
This Act on the part of Ms. Aswathi A. Nair is serious in
nature, unbecoming of a student of JNU and calls for
stringent disciplinary action against her. In view of this and
also keeping her career prospects in mind, the Vice
Chancellor has taken a somewhat lenient view in the matter.
Ms. Aswathi A. Nair is fined Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees twenty
thousand only) and is also warned to be careful and not to
get involved in such incidents in the future. Otherwise, a
stringent disciplinary action will be taken against her. She
is directed to deposit the fine by 13 May 2016 and show the
proof thereof to this office, failing which the hostel facility
will be withdrawn with immediate effect and further
registration will not be allowed.
18. The Petitioner appealed against the above mentioned Office
Order vide letter dated May 02, 2016 wherein she stated that-
These charges against me are false and completely without
any basis, as the object of the cultural evening was to
inspire students to oppose caste oppression and communal
feelings and I did not use any false pretext for the
event...............
In my responses to the HLEC, I had categorically stated that
I was willing to cooperate with its proceedings provided
that I was informed of the charges against me so that I could
furnish my explanation. This was never done, in fact my
letters were not responded to at all. Nor was I furnished
with any of the following documents that I asked for......
19. It was the submission of Ms. Routray, the Petitioner was aware
of the charges levied against her at the stage of show cause itself as a
copy of the HLEC report was annexed along with the Show Cause
notice. Further, the Order dated 25.04.2016 stated the charges against
her were of giving an undertaking under false pretext and lending her
name in the poster. However, the Petitioner only speaks of her
participation in the event and giving an undertaking on false pretext
but does not give any defence with regard to her name on the poster.
Therefore, there was no effective response from the Petitioner even
after the abovementioned order was passed. She submitted, further the
Petitioner was not provided with copies of documents as the
University in its wisdom and in view of the atmosphere, considering
the sensitivity of the matter and in the interest of the witnesses‟ safety
only provided for the same to be inspected before the Committee.
Further, the Norms and Procedures along with SOP state that-
8. Members of the committee will sign a confidentiality/Non-
Disclosure Statement.
9. Any information shared confidentially to the Committee to the
Committee members will not be shared by them after the terms of the
Enquiry Committee us over.
10. No cell phone will be brought into the committee room when
any person comes to depose before it.
11. No statement will be issued to the press during the enquiry
period and also after the enquiry period.
12. All communication from the University to the Committee and
vice a versa will be in writing.
Ms. Routray‟s submission was also that even though the Petitioner and
other students were not provided with the copies of the documents at
the stage of show cause, the same was available to access had they
appeared before the committee to depose. Thus, they themselves
failed to avail the opportunity provided to them.
20. She further submitted that at the stage of appeal the decision is
to be taken only from record before the deciding Appellate Authority,
Rules under the Statute 32(5) state that the punished student has the
right to appeal against the punishment and Vice-Chancellor is the
empowered authority to deal with Appeal. She would submit, the
Petitioner chose not to avail opportunities given to her, both at the
stage of enquiry, and at the stage of Show Cause Notice by wilfully
not responding to the same, hence the Writ Petition on this ground
alone is not maintainable.
21. According to Ms. Routray, the Petitioner is a student studying
in JNU and resident of Hostel in JNU. The Respondent No.1 is
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) established and incorporated by
and an Act of Parliament in the year 1966.
22. That at 12 pm on February 09, 2016 the Respondent got to
know that some students were planning to host an "anti-national
event" in the evening at Sabarmati Dhaba. A meeting was called in
the Vice Chancellor‟s Office, wherein it was discovered that
permission was sought from the Additional Dean of Students by the
Petitioner on the false pretext of holding a poetry reading competition
at Sabarmati Dhaba. Despite the alleged "permission" immediately
being withdrawn by the DOS, the Petitioner carried on with the event
which led to an enormous law and order situation.
23. On February 11, 2016 forthwith a High Level Enquiry
Committee (HLEC) was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to enquire
into the incident that took place on February 09, 2016 in the
Respondent‟s campus. By virtue of Section 5(10) of the JNU Act read
with Statute 32(1) of the Statutes of the University-
"The Vice Chancellor has been vested with all the powers
relating to discipline and disciplinary action in relation to
student."
According to her, the HLEC superseded the Proctorial Enquiry
vide letter dated February 11, 2016 wherein it is stated that
This committee supersedes the Proctorial Enquiry
Committee and the earlier notice dated 11th February, 2016
of the Chief Proctor stands withdrawn.
24. She submitted, the HLEC followed SOP being norms in view of
the nature and the need of the enquiry. The terms of reference of the
Enquiry entailed formulation of SOP. She submitted, the SOP norms
are essentially analogous to the Norms recommended for a Proctorial
enquiry. The 3 Member Committee was later expanded to 5 by the
Vice Chancellor mainly consisted to University Professors and since it
was an internal enquiry of JNU, no third party was allowed to be
present during hearing. Further, no one was allowed to be represented
by a third party. The terms of Reference for the Committee was:
(i) To enquire into the incident and ascertain sequence of events.
(ii) Identify and lapses that may have taken place, and
(iii) On the basis of the findings, recommend action to be initiated
by the University as per its statutes and guidelines.
25. Subsequently, on February 12, 2016 Office Order
No.115/CP/2016 was passed, which stated as follows-
Based on the report submitted by the Chief Security
Officer, video clipping of the events and other related
documents, the High Level Enquiry Committee, constituted
by the Vice-Chancellor, JNU is of the opinion that prima
facie evidence of the occurrence of the following offences
exists:-
(i) Misrepresentation of the proposed event as a
cultural evening although objective was to hold a
political meeting.
(ii) Forcefully holding the event even when the
permission to hold it was withdrawn by the DOS.
(iii) Creating a law and order situation on campus both
at Sabarmati Hostel and Ganga Dhaba.
(iv) Shouting unconstitutional slogans, and making
derogatory remarks about the nation.
26. She submitted, the HLEC followed Standard Operating
Procedure devised by the HLEC specifically for the said enquiry
during the course of enquiry. The HLEC spent considerable time in
examining all the evidences pertaining to the event which included
taking written depositions of eye witnesses and security officials,
posters, SMS withdrawing consent to hold Anti-National event, form
for seeking permission, examining the video clips submitted by JNU
Security Office and scrutinizing various documents/posters related to
this incident. The video submitted to the Committee by the CSO was
duly authenticated by a Government approved agency: Truth Labs,
Bangalore. Subsequent to enquiry procedure, the HLEC recommended
the Petitioner be charged under Category II of (Rules of Discipline
and Proper Conduct of Students of JNU) of the statutes of the
University and imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The HLEC submitted
its report along with recommendations to the Vice Chancellor on
March 11, 2016
27. According to her, the Chief Proctor, after perusing the report of
the HLEC, issued a Show Cause Notice on March 14, 2016 along
with an extension dated March 16, 2016 and a copy of HLEC report
to the Petitioner. According to Ms. Routray, this Court vide Order
dated May 13, 2016 directed that the Order shall not be given effect
till the appeals of the petitioners are heard and disposed of.
Subsequently, the Petitioner was given provisional admission to
continue in the present semester keeping the view the Order dated
May 13, 2016 of this Court.
28. She stated, the Respondent finally issued the Office Order
No.201/CP/2016 dated August 22, 2016, wherein it was stated that-
On being asked by the Appellate Authority "Were you
present at the Sabarmati Dhaba to attend the event on 9 th
February, 2016?" In response to the above question she
said that "she will not speak anything until and unless she is
provided with a photocopy of all the documents requested
by her in her earlier representations to the University
Authorities". It is important to note that Ms. Aswathi A.
Nair was provided a complete set of files (Security
depositions, copies of all relevant videos, copies of
statements given by witnesses, copies of all correspondence,
copies of the report of the HLEC, all other documentary
proof) used by the HLEC to arrive at the punishment in
respect of Ms. Nair.......
Further, the Petitioner was asked other questions however, she did not
cooperate.
Ms Nair was given ample time by the committee to examine all
the files before she could write her appeal and she read through
these files and wrote her appeal
Evidence-
1. The requisitions form to book the venue was filled by
Umar Khalid and the undertaking was signed by four
students, out of them one student was Ms. Nair. Hence it
was clear that Ms. Nair was one of the organizers of the
event.
2. Misleading Chairperson CPS/SSS, Prof. Anupama Roy by
citing in the requisition form that the permission was
being taken for a cultural event whereas the event which
was held was of a different nature altogether.
3. She lent her name to be printed in an objectionable
poster titled "Against the Brahmanical Collective
Conscience Against the Judicial Killing of Afzal Guru
and Maqbool Bhatt.... In the name of cultural evening
thus arousing communal and caste feelings.
Recommendations
Ms. Nair did not make any specific appeal to absolve
herself from the charges made by the HLEC. On the
contrary she questioned the formation of HLEC itself,
and asked for documents and evidence related to her
involvement in the event. The committee thereupon
considers the recommendations of the HLEC on the
aforesaid student highly justifiable. Therefore, the
punishment recommended by the HLEC i.e. "Fine of Rs.
20,000" stands as it is. In addition to this, she has to
submit an undertaking in a prescribed format to the Chief
Proctor.
29. Ms. Routray would submit, without prejudice the allegations
levied against JNU authorities in the Affidavit dated September 05,
2016 are wrong and denied. The Petitioner in her Affidavit stated that-
90% of the files constituted depositions by the security
guards and then there were documents like the reports
from the truth labs on the veracity of the videos. I also
remember going though many office orders asking students
and teachers to depose before the HLEC.......
Further all the depositions by the security guards were in
Hindi, a language I am not comfortable in. When I told
the committee members the same, with a very
condescending attitude they offered to read to me all the
depositions running around 100 pages. I asked them to let
me take a photocopy of the documents so that I could
consult my lawyers but they categorically refused to do
so......
I also strongly objected to the manner in which a pile of
files were thrown at me (mostly written in a language I can
barely read) and asked to take an informed position in a
matter of 15 minutes (in a matter of 15 minutes I was given
an oral English translation of all the depositions by the
security guards).
30. She submitted, from a reading of the above it is evident that the
Respondent fully cooperated with the students, the Petitioner was read
out the depositions in order to enable her to write her Appeal. Further,
the Petitioner/other students were given sufficient time to go through
the documents. The same is evident from the Petitioner‟s Appeal
dated June 16, 2016 wherein she stated that-
I am being forced to go through a pile of files in an hour‟s
time without giving the copy of the complaint against me or
the depositions of all the witnesses, list of documents etc. it
is nothing but a travesty of justice in this perfunctory and
lackadaisical handling of Appeal process.
31. She submitted, the Petitioner in her written Appeal before the
Appellate Committee dated June 16, 2016 stated that she was given an
hour‟s time to go through the documents; this statement of the
Petitioner is highly inconsistent with what she stated in her Affidavit
dated September 05, 2016 and Rejoinder filed before this Court. She
submitted, it is evident that Petitioner was shown all the documents
and further depositions were read out to her. Therefore, there was no
travesty of justice as the Petitioner claims and thus, the Petitioner‟s
statement cannot be given credence to. She submitted that the
Affidavit dated September 05, 2016 is an afterthought after the order
dated August 22, 2016 was passed. Had the Petitioner genuinely been
aggrieved with the procedure followed by the Appellate Committee,
she could have come forward and stated the same after June 16, 2016.
32. It was the submission of Ms. Routray, that the University‟s
autonomy means its right of self-government particularly, it‟s right to
carry on its legitimate activities without interference from any outside
authority. That the petitioner against whom charges were framed was
given adequate opportunities to defend herself, and the committee
followed the rules of natural justice while holding this enquiry. That it
is a settled law that matters falling within the jurisdiction of
educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and
this Court would not interfere unless it thinks it must do so in the
interest of justice. She stated, this Court in Jawaharlal Nehru
University V. Flora Gupta, LPA 570/2012 & CM No.14010/2012
held that-
The grounds on which administrative action is subject to
control by judicial review are, "illegality"; "irrationality"
and "procedural impropriety". The Court will be entitled to
interfere in such matters if the decision is tainted by any
vulnerability like illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety. To be "irrational" it has to be held that on
material, it is a decision "so outrageous" as to be in total
defiance of logic or moral standards. If the power is
exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist having
which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power shall
be vitiated. Exercise of power will be set aside if there is
manifest error in the exercise or such power is manifestly
arbitrary. To arrive at a decision on ""reasonableness" the
court has to find out if the respondents have left out a
relevant factor or taken into account irrelevant factors.
33. It was her submission, the Respondent has acted within their
authority, exercised their judgement in good faith, and followed the
applicable laws. The constitutional provisions, the provisions of the
Act, the Statute and the Ordinances and the principles of natural
justice have been complied with by the Respondent. The Petitioner
was served with notices at her hostel, at her various addresses and was
asked to show cause and was also given opportunity to defend herself
before the enquiry committee. The first notice was sent on February
12, 2016, however, the Petitioner left the campus on February 13,
2016 as admitted by her in her letter. This conduct of the Petitioner
does not attract any empathy from the authorities. The Petitioner was
given ample opportunity to defend but she herself lost the opportunity
by not even responding to the simple queries raised by the Appellate
Committee.
34. She submitted, the Legal Submission made and judgments
relied upon in Umar Khalid V. JNU, W.P. (C) 7826/2016 and
Anirban Bhattacharya V. JNU, W.P. (C) 7828/2016 may be read as
part and parcel of the present submissions. The judgments are:-
(i) K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Ors 1984 (12) SCC
43;
(ii) State of Gujarat v. Pagi Bhura Bhai Rumal Bhai AIR 1969
Gujarat 260;
(iii) Ajeet Seeds Ltd. V. K. Gopal Krishnaiah 2014 (1) SCC 685;
(iv) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Administration)
Bangalore v. V.K. Gururaj and Ors. 1996 (7) SCC 275;
(v) State of Punjab v. Bakhshish Singh 1997 (6) SCC 381;
(vi) Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala AIR 1969 SC
198;
(vii) State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma 1996 (3) SCC 36;
(viii) Ram Chander Roy v. Allahabad University AIR 1956 ALL 40;
(ix) V. Ramana v. APSRTC & Ors 2005 (7) SCC 335.
(x) M.V. Bijlani Vs. UOI and Ors., 2006 (5) SCC 88.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, she prayed for the
dismissal of the writ petition.
35. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
written arguments/submissions submitted by the counsels, it is noted
that the subject matter of this petition is, the orders passed by the
Competent Authority whereby a penalty in the nature of fine of
Rs.20,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, which order was upheld by
the Appellate Authority with a direction to file an undertaking. The
enquiry relates to the events held on February 09, 2016 at the
University Campus. The grounds of challenge by the petitioner are
that the same has been held in violation of Statute 32(5) of the Statutes
of the University; proceedings have been held in violation of
principles of natural justice; the action is actuated by malafide as the
University is also reviving stale proceedings by issuing notice to some
of the concerned students in respect of incidents of 2015. On a
reading of order dated August 22, 2016, there is no connection
between the findings of fact and violation of Rules of the respondent
University. The orders have been issued without giving the relevant
material relied upon by the respective Authorities. The HLEC has
prejudged the petitioner and the action taken on the basis of the report
of the Committee is not impartial and unbiased. The HLEC did not
even reply to the petitioner‟s request for documents, on the basis of
which she has been found guilty. The impugned action has serious
consequences for the petitioner‟s academic career. No Rule/Statute or
Ordinance, under which petitioner has been punished has been
stipulated. The Appellate Authority premised its decision on the
refusal of the students to sign a vague undertaking that would have
resulted in severe curtailment of their fundamental rights.
36. The respondent has justified its action by contending that the
Enquiry Proceedings were held by following the principles of natural
justice and the Rules/Statutes. It is the petitioner, who failed to come
forward and depose before the Committee. That apart, the respondent
has also highlighted the seriousness of the charges for which the
petitioner was held guilty. That apart, the appellate proceedings were
held after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to inspect the
documents and after inspection of the documents and upon hearing
and inability of the petitioner to answer the queries put by the
Appellate Authority, the appellate order was passed.
37. There is no dispute that the petitioner had filed an Appeal dated
May 02, 2016. It is also a conceded fact that the Vice Chancellor-
Appellate Authority had held its meeting on June 16, 2016. There is
also no dispute that the petitioner was shown the record of the enquiry.
The parties are at variance about the duration for which the record was
shown. It is a conceded fact that a hearing was given to the petitioner
on the same day, which resulted in the passing of the appellate order
on August 22, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that she wrote a
letter dated June 16, 2016 to the Chief Proctor, with a copy to the Vice
Chancellor, JNU wherein she had asked for certain documents and
grant her two weeks time from the date of receipt of the documents for
the deposition for the appeal. She has also stated, she was just given
two days to prepare the appeal deposition, which is inadequate.
38. Clause 12 of the Norms and Procedure followed during enquiry
stipulates that every punished student has a right to appeal. In the case
in hand, after this Court had passed the order on May 13, 2016 in the
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No.
4392/2016, the respondent University issued a communication dated
June 13, 2016 asking the petitioner to appeal to the Vice Chancellor
and depose on June 16, 2016. The communication does not refer to
the fact that the petitioner shall be given the relevant
record/documents for inspection. Be that as it may, the learned
counsel for the parties agree that the files/records/documents before
the HLEC were given to the petitioner on June 16, 2016 to enable her
to peruse the same and make submissions on the same day. Even
assuming, three hours were granted to the petitioner to inspect the
documents on June 16, 2016, some time need to have been granted to
the petitioner to apply her mind on the evidence so noted by her
during the inspection, which was against her and to make an effective
appeal. Surely, for such purposes, she may have required reasonable
time to prepare her case, which may include seeking legal advice. In
fact, the petitioner vide her letter dated June 16, 2016 reiterated her
earlier request to make available the documents to make appeal more
meaningful. The procedure evolved by the Appellate Committee to
allow inspection of the documents/records and hearing her could not
be in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement
Company Ltd. v. Workmen and another (1964) 3 SCR 652, wherein
the Supreme Court was considering an appeal arising out of an
industrial dispute between the appellant and the respondent workman
with regard to dismissal of five workmen employed by the appellant
company. One of the issue was that before the enquiry was actually
held on June 11, 1952, notice was not given to Malak Ram, one of the
workmen telling him about the specific date of the enquiry. The
Supreme Court held that failure to intimate to the workman concerned
about the date of the enquiry may, by itself, not constitute an infirmity
in the enquiry, but, on the other hand, it is necessary to bear in mind
that it would be fair if the workman is told as to when the enquiry is
going to be held so that he has an opportunity to prepare himself to
make his defence at the said enquiry and to collect such evidence as he
may wish to lead in support of his defence. The Supreme Court held,
on the whole, it would not be right that the workman should be called
on any day without previous intimation and the enquiry should begin
straightaway. The Supreme Court held, such a course should
ordinarily be avoided in holding domestic enquiries. In other words,
the Supreme Court has held that an incumbent should be given
sufficient opportunity/time to consider the evidence, which has come
against him and to collect evidence in support of his defence. In the
case in hand, no such time was given to the petitioner. That apart, if
the material is being shown to the petitioner, on June 16, 2016, surely,
some time should have been given to the petitioner to enable her to
supplement her appeal already filed by her on May 2, 2016. This
would be in conformity with the concept of fair play in action, which
is the basis of natural justice. That apart, even in these proceedings,
the respondent has not filed, the complete record of the HLEC. In
fact, in some of the connected petitions, a stand has been taken in the
written submissions that only certain documents relied upon by HLEC
were filed before this Court and the entire evidence, documents,
notices and proceedings are maintained by the respondent in its
official files. The same are available for any other scrutiny as and
when the same is requisitioned before the Court. Even if some
depositions were filed along with the written arguments in some
connected cases, the same are in Hindi. Even otherwise, the HLEC
report refers to deposition of some eye witnesses, which are in the
deposition files. It is not clear, who these witnesses are, who are being
referred to. All the evidence, documents, notices and proceedings
being in the official files, there was no occasion for this Court/counsel
for the petitioner to look into the same for a proper
appreciation/justification of the impugned orders. That apart, I note,
the petitioner, in her appeal dated May 02, 2016 has raised several
grounds.
39. A perusal of the order dated August 22, 2016, it is seen that the
Appellate Authority has not dealt with the said grounds. The Supreme
Court in the case reported as (2013) 6 SCC 530 Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani, in para
19 held as under:-
"19. The word "consider", is of great significance. The dictionary
meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to
be". Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that, there must
be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider"
postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus,
formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense
application of mind with reference to the material available on record.
The order of the authority itself, should reveal such application of
mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language
employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its
order. (Vide: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Santosh Kumar, (2006)
11 SCC 147; and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of
Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1771).
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it is expected
that the Appellate Authority should have disposed off the appeal by a
reasoned and speaking order. This I say so, there is nothing in the
Rule, relating to appeal which says otherwise i.e it is not necessary for
the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order.
40. Insofar as the plea of Ms. Malavika Rajkotia that the Vice
Chancellor having involved in the process of enquiry at the first
instance, cannot sit in appeal against his own order is concerned, the
same is without any merit for more than one reason. Firstly, the
petitioner by appearing before the Appellate Authority on June 16,
2016 has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority i.e.
the Vice Chancellor. Secondly, the vires of Rule 12 contemplating an
appeal to the Vice Chancellor is not under challenge.
41. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by Ms. Routray are
concerned, in K.L. Tripathi (supra), the issue, which fell for
consideration was with regard to a challenge to the departmental
enquiry by an employee on the ground that he was not provided
opportunity to cross examine. The Supreme Court held that in the
absence of any lis as to the facts, allegations having been not disputed
by the delinquent officer, no prejudice has been caused.
42. The issue, which has been considered by me in the
aforementioned paras is only with regard to, whether sufficient
opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the documents at the
appellate stage and then submit an appropriate appeal after the
inspection, so as to make the appellate proceedings meaningful and
purposeful. Hence, the judgment would have no relevance.
43. Insofar as the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pagi
Bhurabhai Rumalbhai (supra), is concerned, in the said case the
Gujarat High Court held that the delinquent has no right to seek a
personal hearing at the appellate stage. In the case in hand, the
personal hearing having been agreed to and granted by the University,
it cannot be contended by Ms. Routray that the personal hearing was
not required.
44. In Ajeet Seeds Limited (supra), para 10 on which the reliance
was placed, relates to a conclusion with regard to Section 114 of the
Evidence Act, which enables the Court to presume that in common
course of natural events, a communication made would have been
delivered at the address of the addressee. A reference was made to
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which gives rise to
presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to
the correct address by registered post. The said judgment has no
applicability on the limited issue being considered and decided by this
Court.
45. In Hira Nath Mishra and others v. The Principal, Rajendra
Medical College, Ranchi and another (1973) 1 SCC 805, the
Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the appellants, the
male students of a Medical College lived in the College hostel. A
confidential complaint was received by the Principal from thirty six
girl students residing in the Girls Hostel of the College alleging that
the appellants with some others at late night had entered into the
compound of the Girls Hostel and walked without clothes on them.
The Principal constituted an Enquiry Committee consisting three
Members of the staff. The identification through photographs was
carried out and the Girls by and large could identify the appellants
from the photographs. The appellants were called before the
Committee one after the other. They were explained the contents of
the complaint. Due care was taken not to disclose the names of the
Girls, who made the complaint. The appellants denied the charges and
said they were in the Hostel at that time. The Supreme Court held as
under:-
(i) The complaint made to the Principal related to an
extremely serious matter as it involved not merely
internal discipline but the safety of the girl students
living in the Hostel under the guardianship of the
college authorities. These authorities were in loco
parentis to all the students-male and female who were
living in the Hostels and the responsibility towards the
young girl students was greater because their
guardians had entrusted them to their care by putting
them in the Hostels attached to the college. The
authorities could not possibly dismiss the matter as of
small consequence because if they did, they would have
encouraged the male student rowdies to increase their
questionable activities which would, not only, have
brought a bad name to the college but would have
compelled the parents of the girl students to withdraw
them from the Hostel and, perhaps, even stop their
further education. The Principal was, therefore, under
an obligation to make a suitable enquiry and punish
the miscreants.
(ii) The Police could not be called in because if an
investigation was started the female students out of
sheer fright and harm to their reputation would not
have cooperated with the police. Nor was an enquiry,
as before a regular tribunal, feasible because the girls
would not have ventured to make their statements in
the presence of the miscreants because if they did, they
would have most certainly exposed themselves to
retaliation and harassment thereafter. The very
reasons for which the girls were not examined in the
presence of the appellants, prevailed on the authorities
not to give a copy of the report to them. It would have
been unwise to do so.
(iii) Therefore, the authorities had to devise a just and
reasonable plan of enquiry which, on the one hand,
would not expose the individual girls to harassment by
the male students and, on the other, secure reasonable
opportunity to the accused to state their case. The
course followed by the Principal was a wise one.
(iv) Under the circumstances of the case, the
requirements of natural justice were fulfilled, because
principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may
differ in different circumstances."
From the above, it is noted that, keeping in view the nature of
allegations against the male students; to protect the identity of the
complainants, the girl students, the Supreme Court had upheld, the
nature of enquiry conducted by the University as being in compliance
with the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court has no applicability in the facts of this case and also on
the limited issue that is being decided by this Court.
46. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Suresh Koshy George (supra) is concerned, in para 7 on which
reliance was placed by Ms. Routray, the Supreme Court was
considering a submission that the Vice Chancellor had not made
available to the appellant a copy of the report submitted by the Inquiry
Officer before asking him to make a representation. The Supreme
Court rejected the contention by holding that the enquiry was held
after due notice to him and in his presence. He was allowed to cross
examine the witnesses examined in the case and he was permitted to
adduce evidence in rebuttal of the charge. The Supreme Court also
held, no Rule was brought to its notice, which stipulated the supply of
report. The Supreme Court also observed that it was not the case of
the appellant that he had asked for the copy of the report, which was
denied to him. The judgment relied upon by Ms.Routray is
distinguishable, inasmuch as the petitioner did not participate in the
proceedings/the proceedings were held in her absence. Further, the
Appellate Authority itself has offered to allow inspection of the
documents/record of HLEC. The petitioner had asked for the
documents/record/material in her appeal dated May 02, 2016. The
Appellate Authority having allowed the inspection, reasonable time
should have been given to the petitioner to supplement the appeal
already filed by her on May 02, 2016. The judgment has no
applicability, at least on the limited issue that is being decided by this
Court.
47. Insofar as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Ram Chander Roy (supra) wherein reliance was placed on paras
24 and 25, relates to the power of the Vice Chancellor to impose any
punishment in maintaining the discipline of the University. There is
no dispute on the said proposition of law. Insofar as the plea that the
right of cross examination was denied is concerned, the High Court
held that it was not convinced that in a case where Head of an
Educational Institution takes disciplinary proceedings, it is necessary
that he must give an opportunity to the student to cross examine the
witnesses, who may be examined by him in order to satisfy himself
that an occasion has arisen for taking disciplinary action against him.
In matter of discipline, the Head of Educational Institution does not
act as a judicial or a quasi judicial Tribunal. The Disciplinary power
vested in any Officer or the Head of an Institution is a power which is
absolutely necessary for and ancillary to the exercise of administrative
functions in that capacity. Suffice to state, 32(5) of the Statutes of the
University lays down the procedure. In any case, as stated above, on a
limited issue, which is being decided, this judgment would not have
any applicability.
48. In State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma (supra),
Ms. Routray who relied upon para 35 to contend that no prejudice has
resulted to the petitioner on account of non furnishing her the copy of
the statements of witnesses as it cannot be said that she did not have a
fair hearing is concerned, there is no dispute on the proposition, in
view of the position of law noted above, but the limited time given by
the Appellate Authority to the petitioner to inspect the
documents/material/record and to give a hearing on the same day
would not be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Surely, the Authority empowered under the Statute is required to give
a reasonable opportunity to make the very purpose of the power being
exercised by such Authority meaningful.
49. Insofar as State Bank of Punjab and others v. Bakhshish
Singh (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute that the Court cannot
sit as an Appellate Authority over and above the conclusion of the
Disciplinary Authority that a particular act was a gravest act of
misconduct warranting dismissal. As stated above, on the limited
issue that is being decided by this Court, this judgment would have no
relevance.
50. Insofar as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(Administration), Bangalore v. V.K. Gururaj and others (supra) is
concerned, the said judgment is on the proposition of deemed service,
which in any case has no applicability for the reasons already stated.
51. Insofar as the judgment in the case of V. Ramana v. APSRTC
and Ors (supra) is concerned, the same relates to the issue of judicial
review with regard to punishment. The same has no applicability in
view of limited issue that is being decided by this Court.
52. Insofar as the reliance placed by Ms. Routray on the judgment
of M.V. Bijlani (supra) is concerned, in view of the limited issue that
is being decided by this Court, this judgment would have no
relevance.
53. In view of my above discussion, the writ petition is allowed to
the extent that the Appellate Order dated August 22, 2016 is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with a
direction to grant an opportunity of inspection to the petitioner, the
record of the HLEC for two continuous days during office hours only
by notifying the date and time to the petitioner for the same and upon
such inspection, the petitioner shall have one week time to file a
Supplementary Appeal, upon which the Appellate Authority shall give
a hearing to the petitioner on a date and time fixed by the Appellate
Authority, who thereafter shall, by considering the appeal(s) already
filed by the petitioner and the Supplementary Appeal, if any, pass a
reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within six
weeks thereafter. Till such time, the order dated April 25, 2016 shall
not be given effect to. It is also made clear in view of the undertaking
given by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4392/2016 the petitioner shall
not indulge in any strike or dharna or agitation or coercive action in
future in connection with the issue, till such time the proceedings
between the parties attain finality. No costs.
CM No. 32754/2016 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 12, 2017/ak
