Mr.
Sudhir Nanavati, learned senior counsel appearing with learned advocate Mr. Parikh for the petitioners has submitted that the Court had in order dated 14/03/2012 directed the deponent who had made affidavit on behalf of respondents to remain present in the Court but due to some inadvertent error the office has issued writ requiring the deponent of the affidavit of petitioner i.e. Shri Nandkishor Shukla to remain present in Court. Obviously that is due to some error in reading the order of the Court and that therefore the said writ is to be read with following corrections.
"The deponent who had made the affidavit on behalf of respondents to remain present before the Court."
Even otherwise it was clearly understood by the respondent authority and the counsel also that the deponent of the affidavit of respondents has been directed to remain present in the Court today.
Learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the said deponent S.Kumudawali has not been able to remain present today and she has requested for exemption for one day since the direction of the Court is not complied with. The exemption is granted on the condition that the said deponent shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to legal aid committee. Her absence is condoned for today and exemption until Monday is granted on the above said condition.
For the said purpose of attendance, the petitions are adjourned to Monday for the purpose of considering her explanation, if any, in respect of the two affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent university. S. O. to 19/03/2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top