1. This is an unfortunate case wherein in spite of the several orders and assurance given by the lawyer for the respondent-University, they sucessfully flouted the court's order and to show that Court cannot do anything .
2. On 03.07.2012, this Court in S.C.A. No. 971 of 2012 and other allied matters has passed following order:-
Rule returnable on 15.10.2012.
In the meantime, the impugned orders passed by the respondent-University are stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats.
It is, however, made clear that if any Management Seat/s is/are already allotted during the admission process, then such number of Seat/s shall be deleted and for that purpose, the respondent-University shall file appropriate Civil Application for modification of this order. Direct service permitted.
3. Thereafter, on 09.07. 2012, in Civil Application No. 7724 of 2012 in S.C.A. No. 973 of 2012, this Court has passed following order:-
Rule.
Mr. Y.C. Contractor learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
1.By way of this application, the applicants have prayed to issue appropriate directions to the respondent-University to accept the Enrollment Forms, Eligibility Forms and Examination Forms of the students and to issue Hall-Tickets to them for appearing in the Examination which is to commence from 10.07.2012 and also to declare the results of such students.
2.When the captioned petition was earlier listed before this Court on 03.07.2012, it was extensively heard and the Court had passed the following order;
"Rule returnable on 15.10.2012.
In the meantime, the impugned orders passed by the respondent-University are stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats.
It is, however, made clear that if any Management Seat/s is/are already allotted during the admission process, then such number of Seat/s shall be deleted and for that purpose, the respondent- University shall file appropriate Civil Application for modification of this order. Direct service permitted."
3.By the aforesaid orders, the impugned communications were stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2012, it is clarified that the students named in the document annexed as Annexure-I to the main petition, at page-58, from Sr. No.01 to 20, totaling 20, shall appear in the examination, which is to commence tomorrow, i.e. on 10.07.2012.
4.In view of the same, the respondent-University is directed to accept the candidature of the said 20 students by completing all requisite formalities, whose names have been mentioned at Sr. No.01 to 20, in the document annexed as Annexure-I to the main petition, by today evening and to complete all the requisite formalities so that they could appear in the Examination tomorrow, without any difficulty.
5.It is, however, clarified that if it is practically not possible for the respondent-University to complete the requisite formalities in respect of the said 20 students, then in the alternative, the respondent-University shall make necessary arrangement for conducting the Examination of the said 20 students from 06.08.2012 onwards. However, looking to the allegations made against the respondent-University in the captioned petition, the Examination Papers of such Exam shall be prepared by the Professors / Lecturers of some other University based either in the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat, in which case, the name of such University shall be selected by the respondent-University. Further, the Answer Sheets of the students appearing in such Examination shall be checked by Professors / Lecturers of University, other than that of the respondent-University, whose names shall also be suggested by the respondent-University.
6.The aforesaid arrangement has been made in order to ensure that a free and fair examination is conducted and the career of the students is not put in jeopardy.
7.With the above observations and directions, the application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service today.
4. On 03.08.2012, this Court in S.C.A. No. 8938 of 2012 and other allied matters this Court has passed following orders:-
The programme for re-scheduled examination is prepared, which begins from 29th August, 2012 and ends on 10th September, 2012, which reads as under:-
"PROGRAMME FOR BACHELOR OF EDUCATION RE-EXAMINATION : AUGUST/SEPTEMBER-2012 Gujarat States (New Course) Day & Date Subject-title Sub Code Time Wednesday 29-08.2012 Foundation & Management of System Education 1001 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Thursday 30.08.2012 Teaching Learning Process 1002 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Friday 31.08.2012 Current Concerns & Trends 1003 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Saturday 01-09-2012 Understanding & Developing the Learner 1004 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Monday 03-09-2012 English Language Education 2004 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. Book Keeping & A/c Education 2001 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Tuesday 04.09.2012 Gujarati Language Education 2006 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m Marathi Language Education 2009 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Wednesday 05-09-2012 Hindi Language Education 2007 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m Economic Education 2003 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Thursday 06-092012 Sanskrti Language Education 2011 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m Mathematics Education 2010 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Friday 07-09-2012 Social Science Education 2013 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m Science Education 2012 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Saturday 08-09-2012 Commerce Education 2002 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m History Education 2008 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday 10-09-2012 Geography Education 2005 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m Urdu Language Education 2014 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Note:
University reserve rights to make changes in examination schedule and centers:
(Dr.P.N. Mandhare) Controller of Examinations"
However, with a view to enable Mr. Contractor, learned advocate for the respondents, to produce on record the reply, S.O. to 07.08.2012.
Pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2012, Registrar, SNDT Women's University has personally remained present before this Court. His presence is dispensed with on the next date of hearing. The rescheduled examination programme is taken on record.
Office is directed to list the Civil Application No. 7958 of 2012 on the next date of hearing along with these matters.
5. On 14.8.2012, this Court in C.A. No. 9235 of 2012 and other allied matter has passed following order.
"Rule returnable on 21.8.2012 Direct service is permitted.
On 18.10.2012, this Court in Civil Application No. 9235 of 2012 and other allied matters passed following order:_ "1. On 25.09.2012 the following order was passed by this Court;
"1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Contractor learned advocate for the respondent-University.
2. Learned advocate, Mr.Contractor, for the University has taken a stand that University has filed its reply, which reads as under:
"I, Shrimati Dr.Kumudhavalli, the Registrar, Shreemati Nathibhai Damordar Thackersey Women's University do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. I say and submit that the subject of vital issue in the present case is about allotment of the management quota seats. The related important sub-issues are:
What is the scope of the right of the college to the management quota seats?
What are limits on it?
When and how it can be exercised?
2. I say and submit that I submit a table that gives a complete picture regarding admission of students allotted to colleges named therein. It also shows clearly how the students were allotted to each college in each category in the first instance i.e. regular admissions as well.
3.I say and submit that therefore, each college is well aware of the admission procedure of the University. Each of the colleges is alloted students as per category applicable to it under the facts and circumstances of the case in regular course.
4.I say and submit none of the students has appeared before the admission committee on the prescribed admission day and obtained admission during the regular admission process. This is amply established by the fact that none has produced any document regarding admission granted to her/them.
5.I say and submit that the college in question is not entitled to secure admission for its students beyond the prescribed limit 50% for students outside the State of Gujarat.
6.I say and submit that the prospectus clearly states that after the admission date is over all the vacant seats including management seats come back to the University.
7.I say and submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case the not a single student is entitled to the examination on the basis of even management quota".
3.It seems that University has not implemented the order but treated and interpreted the order of the Court in a manner which suits to them. Mr.Contractor has stated that it is not the job of the University but it is the job of the Court to verify and confirm and pass the order. The University is not going to examine the order and take decision on its own.
4.The stand to be taken by the statutory authority is that they have to either challenge the order of the learned Single Judge or to execute the order and act in compliance with the order. Even if, any application is contrary to law or which is not falling within the purview of the Court's order, it will be open for the University to reject the same by giving reasons.
5.The order passed by this Court is attempted to be taken by the University as if it is the Court's responsibility.
6.In that view of the matter, respondent-University is given a chance to comply with the order of this Court and pass appropriate order within a period of 2 weeks from today.
7.It will be open for this Court to pass further order, if necessary.
8.S.O.
to 15th October, 2012."
In spite of the above order, today, Mr. YC Contractor learned counsel has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court has no other option but, to direct the respondents to appear before this Court. Hence, both the respondents are directed to remain present before this Court at 1100 hrs. on 23.10.2012. Direct service today.
6. Thereafter, on 23.10.2012, this Court in Civil application No. 9235 of 2012 and other allied matters has passed following order:-
"1.0 This Court on 18.10.2012 passed the following order:
"1. On 25.09.2012 the following order was passed by this Court;
"1. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Contractor learned advocate for the respondent-University.
2. Learned advocate, Mr.Contractor, for the University has taken a stand that University has filed its reply, which reads as under:
"I, Shrimati Dr.Kumudhavalli, the Registrar, Shreemati Nathibhai Damordar Thackersey Women's University do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. I say and submit that the subject of vital issue in the present case is about allotment of the management quota seats. The related important sub-issues are:
What is the scope of the right of the college to the management quota seats?
What are limits on it?
When and how it can be exercised?
2. I say and submit that I submit a table that gives a complete picture regarding admission of students allotted to colleges named therein. It also shows clearly how the students were allotted to each college in each category in the first instance i.e. regular admissions as well.
3. I say and submit that therefore, each college is well aware of the admission procedure of the University. Each of the colleges is alloted students as per category applicable to it under the facts and circumstances of the case in regular course.
4. I say and submit none of the students has appeared before the admission committee on the prescribed admission day and obtained admission during the regular admission process. This is amply established by the fact that none has produced any document regarding admission granted to her/them.
5. I say and submit that the college in question is not entitled to secure admission for its students beyond the prescribed limit 50% for students outside the State of Gujarat.
6. I say and submit that the prospectus clearly states that after the admission date is over all the vacant seats including management seats come back to the University.
7. I say and submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case the not a single student is entitled to the examination on the basis of even management quota".
3. It seems that University has not implemented the order but treated and interpreted the order of the Court in a manner which suits to them. Mr.Contractor has stated that it is not the job of the University but it is the job of the Court to verify and confirm and pass the order. The University is not going to examine the order and take decision on its own.
4. The stand to be taken by the statutory authority is that they have to either challenge the order of the learned Single Judge or to execute the order and act in compliance with the order. Even if, any application is contrary to law or which is not falling within the purview of the Court's order, it will be open for the University to reject the same by giving reasons.
5. The order passed by this Court is attempted to be taken by the University as if it is the Court's responsibility.
6. In that view of the matter, respondent-University is given a chance to comply with the order of this Court and pass appropriate order within a period of 2 weeks from today.
7. It will be open for this Court to pass further order, if necessary.
8. S.O.
to 15th October, 2012."
2. In spite of the above order, today, Mr. YC Contractor learned counsel has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court has no other option but, to direct the respondents to appear before this Court. Hence, both the respondents are directed to remain present before this Court at 1100 hrs. on 23.10.2012. Direct service today."
2.0 In spite of the aforesaid orders, respondents have chosen not to remain present in the Court today. In that view of the matter, this Court has no other option but to issue bailable warrant to them. Accordingly, bailable warrant in the of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each shall be issued against respondent No.1- Shrimati Dr.Kumudhavalli, the Registrar, Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University and respondent No.2- P.N. Mandhave, the Controller of Examination, C/o Smt. Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women's University returnable on 06.11.2012.
3.0A copy of the present order shall be supplied to office of the Government Pleader.
7. After passing of the bailable warrant by this Court, Mr. Contractor, on 6th November, 2012, learned advocate for the respondent-University had appeared before this Court and and filed affidavit and on the same day i.e. on 6.11.2012, this Court has passed following order:-
"1. When the Court was about to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the concerned officials of the respondent-University, an assurance was given by learned counsel Mr. YC Contractor appearing on behalf of the respondent-University that the Officers concerned shall remain present before this Court as and when directed. He has also tendered Affidavit dated 05.11.2012 in that regard, which is taken on record.
2. The factum of issuance of bailable warrant against the officials concerned of the respondent-University is known to Mr. YC Contractor learned advocate appearing for the respondent-University and the officials concerned.
3. However, in view of the assurance given by Mr. Contractor, the matters are adjourned to 08.11.2012. On next date, if the officials concerned do not remain present before this Court at 1100 hrs., the Court shall pass appropriate orders in the matters."
8. In spite of the earlier orders of this Court, Mr. Contractor, learned counsel for the respondent-University, is not present before the Court today. However, when the Court was about to pass some orders, Mr. G. Dobta learned advocate appeared and represented himself to be the Advocate for the respondent-University. However, I find that no Vakalatnama or apperance has been filed by him for the respondent-University. Therefore, this Court does not deem it necessary to hear said Mr. G. Dobta as advocate for respondent-University, particularly, when the University has been represented by Mr. YC Contractor all throughout and still his appearance is on record. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the respondent-University has committed willful disobedience of the earlier order of this Court.
9. In view of the above, Office is directed to issue Non-bailable warrant against respondent No.1-Dr. Kumudhavali, who is the Registrar of Shrimati Nathibhai Damodar Thackersey Women's University and respondent No.2-P.N. Mandhave, Controller of Examination, C/o Smt. Nathibhai Damodar Thackersey Women's University, making it returnable on 27th November, 2012. For execution of N.B.W., if necessary, help of police force be taken.
10. Office is further directed to give a copy of this order to the respective learned advocates as also to learned AGP Mr. JK Shah for onward communication about the passing of this order, by appropriate mode, to the competent authority in the Government of Gujarat and also in Government of Maharashtra. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra / Gujarat, where the name of learned advocate Mr. YC Contractor, has been registered as Advocate for necessary intimation and action, in view of the Affidavit filed before this Court on 6.11.2012 and assurance given and action also.
11. Office is directed to place a copy of this order in each matter.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan