1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order cum letter dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure-A to the petition) and to direct the respondents to accept enrollment and eligibility form of B.Ed. Course 2011-12 of the students by approving their admissions and further prayed for stay of the aforesaid order dated 27.12.2011 and to direct the respondents to grant admission to the students.
2. Considering the fact that the matter pertains to students who have already been admitted by the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 30.1.2012 had passed the following order:-
"Notice returnable on 14.02.2012. Over and above the usual mode of service it would be open for the petitioner to serve both the respondents by Regd. Speed Post A.D."
3. On 14.2.2012, as per the order dated 30.1.2012, learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor appeared and made a statement before this Court that he would file his appearance for and on behalf of the respondents and sought time to file affidavit in reply. Considering the statement made by learned counsel Mr. Contractor, this Court vide order dated 14.2.2012 passed the following order:-
"1. Mr.
Y.C. Contractor, learned counsel, on instructions, appears for the respondents.
2. Mr.
Contractor, learned counsel states that he will file his appearance for and on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file affidavit-in-reply.
3. Considering the fact that the matters pertain to admission of the students, the respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-reply on or before 21.02.2012. Rejoinder, if any, be filed on or before 27.02.2012. The matters are adjourned to 29.02.2012."
4. As aforesaid, even though specific order was passed in presence of learned counsel Mr. Contractor, neither the reply is filed, nor the appearance is filed which as such amounts to non-compliance of the earlier order which was passed in presence of learned counsel Mr. Contractor.
5. Today, learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor is present and again makes a similar statement that his appearance shall be filed and affidavit shall be filed on or before 5.3.2012. Mr. Contractor further submitted that in fact the respondents were not served. However, the record of these petitions reveal that the respondents are served and such a statement made by Mr. Contractor is contrary to his own statement made before this Court on 14.2.2012. Even the record shows that the respondents are duly served on 13.2.2012.
6. However, considering the fact that the matter pertains to fate of the students, the respondents are directed to file affidavit in reply latest by 5.3.2012, failing which, respondent No.1 shall personally remain present before this Court. This order is passed in presence of Mr. Contractor and therefore, Mr. Contractor is requested by this Court to inform respondent No.1 about the same.
7. Registry is directed to serve a copy of this order upon learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor who has orally submitted that he has instructions to appear for respondent No.1. Over and above this, the Registry is also directed to send a copy of this order to respondent No.1 on Fax number as stated at Page 12 of the paper book forthwith.
8. Mr.
Saurin Mehta, learned advocate for Mrs. V.D. Nanavati for the petitioners tenders an additional copy of the paper book of all the matters in Special Civil Application No.971 of 2012 to Special Civil Application No.979 of 2012.
S.O.
to 5.3.2012.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya Top