Delhi High Court
Anmol Panwar vs University Of Delhi on 15 July, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th July, 2020
+ LPA 173/2020 & CM APPLs.15104-05/2020
ANMOL PANWAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv.
along with appellant-in-person.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal and
Mr. Hardik Rupal, Advs. for
R-1 & 3/University of Delhi.
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv.
for R-2.
Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta &
Ms. Nihaarika Jauhari, Advs.
for R-4/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.07.2020
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL.15105/2020 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 173/2020 & CM APPL.15104/2020
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the
original petitioner against an interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4033/2020 dated 08.07.2020.
2. The said writ petition concerns the nomination of the
appellant to the Governing Body of Lakshmibai College
[respondent no. 2 herein, hereinafter referred to as "the College"]
by the Government of NCT of Delhi [respondent no. 4 herein,
hereinafter referred to as "GNCTD"]. The College is a constituent of
Delhi University [respondent no.1 herein, hereinafter referred to
as "the University"].
3. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner, who is an
Advocate of this Court, served as the Chairman of the Governing
Body of the College for the year 2018-19. According to the appellant,
the Governing Body of the colleges sponsored by GNCTD (including
Lakshmibai College) consists of 15 members, including 10 members
nominated by the GNCTD out of which 5 persons are from a list sent
by the University. GNCTD nominated the appellant for a further term
by a communication dated 28.06.2019 (at page 115 of the memo of the
appeal). However, the University has, by Resolution no. 68 of the
Executive Council dated 13-15.03.2020 (at page 94 of the memo of
the appeal), inter alia requested GNCTD to reconsider the nomination
of the appellant. Although the nomination of the appellant has been
reiterated by GNCTD vide a communication dated 20.03.2020 (at
page 95 of the memo of the appeal), the University has not acted
thereupon. In the meantime, it is stated in the writ petition that a
meeting of the Governing Body was scheduled, to which the appellant
was not invited. This resulted in filing of the writ petition on
06.07.2020.
4. By the impugned order dated 08.07.2020, while directing the
respondents to file their counter affidavits to the writ petition, the
learned Single Judge observed as follows:-
"7. Since there is a serious dispute as to the
nomination of the Petitioner into the Governing Body of
College, at this stage, it would not be permissible for this
Court to deem that the Petitioner is a member of the said
Governing Body. The question as to whether the Delhi
University can approve or disapprove the nomination of
any candidate, who has been nominated by the GNCTD
of Delhi would have to be adjudicated by this Court after
completion of pleadings.
8. Both the counsels appearing for the Petitioner and
the college agree that the first General Body Meeting is
being convened as the matter is being heard currently.
Ld. Counsel for the College submits that the elections
may also be required to be called in conformity with the
applicable rules and regulations. This Court does not
wish to interdict the functioning of the Governing Body,
which has 14 members as of today as it is also in the
interest of the College that the Governing Body ought to
fully function. Accordingly, the Governing Body is
permitted to take all decisions required for the day to day
activities of the college. Elections, if held, shall be as per
the applicable Regulations and would be held only after
giving one week's notice so that the persons, who may
want to nominate themselves for the various posts, would
be given adequate notice for filling their nomination/s.
The outcome of the elections shall also be subject to the
orders, which would be passed in the present writ
petition."
5. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant,
submits that after the impugned order was passed, the election for the
office bearers of the Governing Body has also been scheduled. He
submits that the request of the University directing the reconsideration
of the appellant's nomination is contrary to law, being unsupported by
reasons and that, in any event, the nomination has been reiterated by
GNCTD. He also contends that the Governing Body must be
composed of 15 members and the present composition of the
Governing Body with only 14 members is non est. In these
circumstances, Mr. Mathur submits that the learned Single Judge
ought to have interdicted the process of election and the functioning of
the Governing Body at least until the issues raised in the writ petition
were resolved. A tenure of the Governing Body being for the period of
one year, Mr. Mathur contends that the writ petition would itself
become infructuous, if the appellant's position is not protected in the
interim.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find no reason to entertain this appeal against the interim order dated
08.07.2020. By the Executive Council's Resolution No.68 dated 13-
15.03.2020 of the University of Delhi, it appears that that names of
some of the nominees of GNCTD have been sent back by the
University for reconsideration. That decision has been assailed by the
appellant, as has the University's inaction upon the reiteration of the
nomination. The merits of the petitioner's case will be adjudicated by
the writ court after completion of pleadings, as directed in paragraph 7
of the impugned order. In the meantime, the learned Single Judge has
directed that the Governing Body would be permitted to take decisions
required for the day to day activities of the College and the outcome of
the election shall be subject to orders passed in the writ petition. Thus,
there is a balance maintained by the learned Single Judge and in the
event, the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, necessary orders can
be passed to ensure that his candidature for any of the offices to which
elections are proposed to be held is not foreclosed. The writ petition is
otherwise also adjourned on 21.08.2020 for hearing.
7. In view of these facts, there is no substance in this Letters
Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are at
liberty to request the learned Single Judge for advancement of the date
of hearing of the writ petition, which may be considered by the
learned Single Judge, if convenient.
8. The pending application also stands disposed of accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 15, 2020
kks
