R.N.T. Memorial College vs Commissioner, College Shiksha
2021 Latest Caselaw 6277 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 736/2021
1.     R.n.t. Memorial College, Through Its Secretary Rajeev
       Kumar, S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
       Jhilai Road, Newai, District Tonk (Raj.).
2.     Vivek Mahavidhyalay, Tonk Through Its Secretary Pradeep
       Sharma, S/o Shri Vijay Sharma, Resident Of Adarsh
       Nagar, Tonk (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     Commissioner, College Shiksha, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     Joined Director, College Shiksha, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     Secretary,    Higher       Education         Department,        Rajasthan,
       Jaipur.
4.     Chancellor,     Marshi       Dayanand          Sarvasti     Vishvidhyalay,
       Ajmer.
5.     Director, Marshi Dayanand Sarvasti Vishvidhyalay, Ajmer.
6.     Registrar, Marshi Dayanand Sarvasti Vishvidhyalay, Ajmer.
7.     Shiv Mahavidhyalay, Siroli Mod, District Tonk, Through Its
       Director,    Shivji    Lal     Choudhary          S/o     Sh.   Heera   Lal
       Choudhary, R/o Siroli Mod, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk
       (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Bapna, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Siddharth Bapna and Mr. Banwari Singh

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 09/11/2021 D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.1/2021 alongwith D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 736/2021:-

(2 of 3) [SAW-736/2021]

The writ-appeal filed by the original petitioners challenges

the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated

02.08.2021 by which the writ petition came to be dismissed.

The central issue involved is the stand taken by the Maharshi

Dayanand Saraswati University with whom colleges run by the

petitioner-trust are affiliated, that the colleges had admitted

students in excess of approved intake capacity. The learned Single

Judged concurred with the view of the University and dismissed

the petition, hence the appeal.

Along with the appeal, the appellants-original petitioners

have filed an application for taking additional documents on

record. Along with the application several documents have been

produced, which according to the Counsel for the appellants would

be relevant and vital and would have bearing on the final outcome

of the litigation.

This application is orally opposed by the Counsel for the

University, who contended that the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of

C.P.C. allowing additional documents at appellate stage is narrow.

The petitioners have not made out any grounds why such

documents could not be produced in the writ petition.

In view of the fact that the questions of validity of

admissions and the validity of the course pursued by the students

are involved, in our view in larger interest of justice the additional

documents filed by the appellants along with the interim

application are required to be brought on record. However, we

cannot ignore the fact that the appellants could as well produce

those documents timely which would minimize the time consumed

(3 of 3) [SAW-736/2021]

in disposal of these proceedings and resultantly could have

brought better clarity for the future of the students in time.

Under the circumstances, while allowing this application the

appellants must be saddled with considerable cost.

If we allow the application and admit additional documents

on record, the entire complexion of the litigation would change. As

Appellate Court we would not like to examine factual and legal

issues at first instance which can better be done by the learned

Single Judge. We would therefore revive the writ petition by

setting aside the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge and

request the learned Judge to dispose of the petition again after

taking on account the additional documents allowed to be brought

on record. The University and other contesting respondents of

course would have additional time for filing replies to the changed

circumstances.

The appeal along with application are disposed of with

following orders:-

(i) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 736/2021 is allowed. The documents annexed with the application are allowed to be brought on record.

(ii) The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed, not on merits but only for decision of the petition afresh in view of additional documents being brought on record.

(iii) The appellants shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- of which would be deposited with the University and the rest with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.

                                    (REKHA BORANA),J                                                      (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
                                   KAMLESH KUMAR/N.Gandhi/9








Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)