Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Longowal Institute Of Engineering ... vs Kulvir Singh Sidhu And Others on 26 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056867-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:056867 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105) LPA-930-2024 (O&M)
Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology and another
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Kulvir Singh Sidhu and others
......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-1029-2024 (O&M)
Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology and another
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Pardeep Kumar Jain and others
......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 26.04.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Deputy Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate
for caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
for respondent Nos.58, 71, 120, 134, 136
(in LPA-930-2024) and for respondent Nos.8, 13, 52, 57 & 58
(in LPA-1029-2024).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2289-LPA-2024 in LPA-930-2024 &
CM-2496-LPA-2024 in LPA-1029-2024
Applications for condonation of delay of 102 days in filing the
appeals, are allowed, in view of the averments made in the applications, duly
supported by affidavit. Delay of 102 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056867-DB
Main cases
1. Consideration in the present letters patent appeals is sought of the
orders of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2023 passed in CWP-1288-
2017 'Kulvir Singh Sidhu and others Vs. Union of India and others' and
CWP-23695-2017 'Pardeep Kumar Jain and others Vs. Union of India
and others'.
2. A perusal of the impugned orders would go on to show that the
concession has been taken from respondent Nos.2 & 3-Sant Longowal
Institute of Engineering & Technology (SLIET). The financial layout as such
of the burden admittedly to be paid by Union of India, but the counsel for
Union of India was not present when the order was passed. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of
concession given by respondent-SLIET, the matter could not have been
disposed of.
3. We have also been taken through the reply filed on behalf of
respondent No.1, which would go on to show that the specific stance was
taken by the Union of India that SLIET was not established under NIT Act,
2007. Resultantly, it is argued that the judgment upon which the learned
Single Judge had placed reliance upon would not be applicable, as conceded
by counsel for the SLIET. The learned Single Judge has also not referred to
the response of respondent No.1 in the said order.
3. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
matter would require reconsideration by the learned Single Judge. Resultantly,
the present appeals are allowed and matter is remanded to the learned Single
Judge for a fresh decision.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056867-DB
4. Needless to say that we have made aboveaid observations on the
basis of the record and we have not gone into the merits of the case. The
learned Single Judge will decide all the issues, since admittedly the SLIET is a
Registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as per the reply
by respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the connected case i.e. CWP No.23695 of 2017. It
is, however, made clear that anything observed herein will not prejudice the
case of any of the parties, keeping in view the reasoning given above and all
issues have been kept open for consideration.
5. The appeals stand allowed accordingly.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
