1. When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 is absent.
2. In continuation of defiance to the order passed by this Court from time to time and so recorded even earlier in detail on 28.8.2012 which reads as under:
"In this writ petition, in the context of prayer of the petitioners-students to permit them to appear in the examination of B.Ed. Course to be held by respondent No.1-
University, which was to start from 10.7.2012 onwards, initially, on 18.6.2012, notice was issued to be served upon the respondents and the hearing was fixed on 22.6.2012. In spite of service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.1-University. However, learned counsel for SCA/8134/2012 2/6 ORDER respondent No.2-College appeared . Thereafter, affidavit-in- reply was filed by respondent No.2-College, but, again none represented for respondent No.1-University. An order was passed on 29.6.2012 by issuing Rule returnable on 5.7.2012. It was made clear that if no one appears for respondent No.1-University, an order in accordance with law will be passed. On 5.7.2012, Mr. V.C. Contractor, learned counsel for respondent No.1-University appeared and requested for time and, accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 9.7.2012 On 9.7.2012, a statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.1-University that similar issue was pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and, if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible, a separate examination commencing from 6.8.2012 can be conducted by respondent No.1-University and the petitioners could appear subject to eligibility. On 1.8.2012, when the matter was listed for further order, a sick note of learned counsel for respondent No.1-University was filed. On the above date, no representation was made. The Registrar of respondent No.1-University was directed to remain personally present before this Court and the matter was ordered to be heard on 3.8.2012. On 3.8.2012, again Mr. V.C. Contractor, learned counsel for respondent No.1- University appeared and placed a photo-copy of examination programme of B.Ed. to be conducted in the month of August/September 2012 and the eligibility of the petitioners would be scrutinized and a decision would be taken in this regard and if it were to be adverse, would be communicated to the petitioners. Since enrollment forms and other relevant materials along with demand draft were submitted to respondent No.1-University and were already placed on record of the petition, on 23.8.2012, in absence of further programme for examination and in absence of learned counsel for respondent No.1-University appeared, SCA/8134/2012 3/6 ORDER the Controller of Examination, SNDT University, respondent No.1 herein, was directed to remain present before this Court on 27.8.2012. Since the above order dated 23.8.2012 was not complied with, the matter is kept today for further orders.
In the meanwhile, affidavit dated 27.8.2012 is filed by a friend of the petitioners who had visited respondent No.1- University for serving the above notice issued by this Court, stating, in no uncertain terms, that the order dated 23.8.2012 was communicated by FAX at 3.30 p.m. and a copy of FAX message is annexed with the affidavit. It further mentioned about the treatment meted out to the authorized person who went to serve the notice by the Registrar of respondent No.1-University and other personnel and threats administered to the person so authorized about dire consequences including filing of complaint before concerned police station, at Mumbai.
In the above backdrop of facts, in the proceeding of writ petition, where no vakalatnama is filed on behalf of respondent No.1-University, nor affidavit is filed by respondent No.1-University till today controverting the facts, except oral submission made about willingness of respondent No.1-University to comply with the order and to hold examination, the fact remains that the Controller of Examination, SNDT University, respondent No.1 herein has failed to remain present before this Court in spite of due communication of the order passed by this Court, as referred to hereinabove.
Prima-facie, the conduct of the Controller of Examination, SNDT University, exhibits willful disobedience and breach of the order dated 23.8.2012 and even no explanation is rendered on oath.
SCA/8134/2012 4/6 ORDER In the above circumstances, issue notice to the Controller of Examination, SNDT University, directing to explain as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be not initiated against him and further an order in terms of prayers made in this petition be not passed. Notice returnable on 5.9.2012.
Direct service is permitted.
S.O. To 5.9.2012."
2.1. Subsequently orders were passed on 7.9.2012, 10.9.2012, 26.9.2012, 15.10.2012 and thereafter on 1.11.2012. The order dated 1.11.2012 reads as under:
"1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
2. Shri Y.C. Contractor, learned advocate for the Respondent No.1-University, appears and submits that the matter may be kept on 7.11.2012 as the Respondents would like to file affidavit and place certain materials on record.
3. By the order dated 15.10.2012, the Respondent No.1- University, was already directed to issue necessary hall tickets to the petitioners in the ensuing B.Ed. examination and in continuation thereof, as and when forthcoming programme for conducting examination of B.Ed. is declared for the affiliated colleges with Respondent No.1-University at the end of academic session, the above directions shall be complied with.
4. The Telegram dated 16.10.2012 sent by officer of Respondent No.1-University, directly to this Court seeking adjournment and tendering apology and expressing their SCA/8134/2012 5/6 ORDER inability to comply with earlier assurances to file affidavit, is ordered to be taken on record.
In spite of the fact that the Respondent No.1- University, is represented through the advocate, who has already filed Vakalatnama, addressing the Telegram in the name of Judge, is deprecated and therefore to take appropriate action in this regard against respondents, the matter is ordered to be heard on 7.11.2012.
5. S.O. to 7th November 2012."
3. At the request of learned advocate for respondent No.1 University, the matter was kept for further hearing on 7.11.2012. In the above order, the practice of the officer, respondent No.1 University is represented through the advocate, who has already filed Vakalatnama, addressing the Telegram in the name of Judge, was deprecated for taking action in accordance with law. The matter was adjourned to today.
3.1. Meanwhile another telegram is received of similar nature addressed directly in the name of the Judge, which is ordered to be taken on record.
4. The conduct and the practice adopted by Controller of Examination and Registrar of the respondent NO.1 University is nothing but persistence and willful defiance to the orders passed by this Court and it is now impossible for this Court to secure their presence to decide the subject matter in accordance with law.
SCA/8134/2012 6/6 ORDER
5. This matter is pending since June, 2012 and subject matter is pertaining to admission, enrollment and appearance in the examination of the petitioners-students in the B.Ed examination.
6. This Court is left with no option since no affidavit is surfaced on record as on date.
7. The Registrar and Controller of Examination of respondent NO.1 University are directed to appear in person on 27.11.2012 before this Court, failing to which, non-bailable warrant will be issued against them.
8. Stand over to 27.11.2012.
9. Direct service is permitted.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita//