2013 Supreme(Bom) 1340

In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
ANOOP V. MOHTA & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Through Registrar
Versus
Sachin Manohar Nagpure & Others
Writ Petition No.2389 of 2013
Decided On : 19-07-2013

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12 - Writ petition.

       Availability of an alternative efficacious remedy, is not a permanent embargo to entertain writ petition. - There is no dispute with regard to the scheme, purpose and object of the Act. This judgment is even otherwise nowhere created permanent embargo to entertain the petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The requirement is only that reason should be provided, which compels the High Court to entertain the petition by making a departure from the general view of not entertaining the writ petition, when alternative efficacious remedy is available. Court has already noted the conduct of the students, the averments by suppressing noted facts in the complaint and the order so passed by the Consumer Court/Forum. This is a perfect case to entertain the writ petition and to pass appropriate relief in the interest of justice. The students cannot be kept in dark by such impermissible order.

       Section 12 - Ex parte interim order of consumer Fora.

       An ex parte interim order, only on sympathetic consideration, cannot be passed by consumer Fora, effect of which is to grant final ex-parte relief itself. - The sympathetic considerati on, thus, cannot be the reason, in this background, to pass such interim order, the effect of which, is to grant final ex-parte relief itself, which is also deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, U.P.S.C. and another v. S. Krishna Chaitanya, 2013 (7) All MR 768 (SC). It is made clear that Court is not concerned, at this stage, with the grievance, if any, of the students against the Management and for their action and inaction to file or initiate appropriate proceedings for damages and/or other reliefs. Court is not deciding those issues in the present petition. They are, therefore, to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. But once there is a clear decision/declaration given by the High Court and the Supreme Court that the admission of such students including the petitioner for the academic year 2011-12 became illegal and no legal right can flow from such admission, which includes appearance in any examination, in Court’s view, also clinches the issue against the students, as well as the Management. The direction/interim order so passed is apparently impossible to execute and contrary to the order passed by the Court and therefore, is without jurisdiction and authority.

       Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - Order to hold examination on priority basis.

       An ex-parte interim order of consumer Court, directing University to hold examination of students’ on priority basis merely because students have paid fees and their career was involved, improper and cannot be sustained. - Admittedly, the respondents students have not placed anything on record before the Consumer Forum nor averments are made about their own petitions and the various orders/judgment passed by the Court, as well as, the High Court therein. Court has also gone through the copy of the complaint placed on record.

       Admittedly, therefore, they could not appear in the earlier examination. By the impugned order as recorded, the direction/permission is given for May, 2013 examination, merely because the students have paid the fees and the question of their career is involved, is impermissible.

       Even in case where the candidates are permitted to continue with the course, they should normally be not permitted to take further examinations of the professional courses. The students who pursue the courses under the orders of the Court would not be entitled to claim any equity at the final decision of the case nor should it weigh with the Courts of competent jurisdiction.

       In the instant case, the respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of the examinations. In Court’s opinion, grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching the Court.