1. Persons of eminence in their field are also not above personal prejudices and petty squabbles. The present litigation is a consequence of such an approach.

2. The Centre for Policy Research (for short “Centre”), appellant herein, was set up as a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the objective of planning, promoting and providing for education and training in policy planning and management areas. The Memorandum of Association inter alia provides for holding seminars and conferences, conducting research, promoting education and development of personnel with the objective of maximization of the national resources. The Memorandum is widely worded and the Society was set up with the blessings of late Shri T.A. Pai, then a Union Minister with eminent people involved in it. Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker, the appellant in LPA No.313/2002 was a Member Secretary. Dr. Brahma Chellaney, respondent No.1 also came to be associated with this organization, who is also one of the eminent persons of his field. The Centre was granted lease of land by the Government of India at institutional rates to construct its campus building in 1978-79 after it was originally set up in 1972 and the new campus started functioning from March, 1980. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Research Professor on 23.6.1993 and a fresh letter of appointment was issued on 1.4.2000 increasing the remuneration with retrospective effect. The services of respondent No.1 were, however, terminated on 16.8.2000 giving three (3) months” salary in lieu of such termination. Aggrieved by this action, respondent No.1 filed WP (C) No.5928/2000 in this Court along with an interlocutory application praying for interim stay. The learned single Judge in terms of order dated 15.11.2000 granted stay of termination. In the mean time, Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker resigned on 2.9.2000 though the decision on that resignation was deferred by the Governing Body of the Centre. The Union of India preferred an appeal against the interlocutory order but the same was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the writ petition, which was pending. The writ petition came to be decided by the learned single Judge of this Court on 18.1.2002. The writ of respondent No.1 was allowed with costs of Rs.10,000.00 against Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker.

3. The Centre preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which is before us and Dr. V.A. Pai Panandiker also filed an appeal on similar grounds, apart from raising the issue of imposition of costs personally on him. Along with the appeal an application for interim stay was also filed but the same was dismissed as not pressed.

4. The Centre decided to accept the decision of the learned single Judge insofar as the quashing of the termination of services of respondent No.1 is concerned but constituted an Inquiry Committee to look into the conduct of respondent No.1. On the basis of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee action was sought to be taken against respondent No.1 which was challenged by respondent No.1 in WP (C) No.4542/2002. The said writ is still pending and interim orders in favour of respondent No.1 were granted.

5. The result of all this is that the impugned action of termination against respondent No.1 which resulted in the orders of the learned single Judge which is now sought to be impugned in the present appeals does not stand and has been accepted by the appellant Centre. The appellant Centre is, however, aggrieved by certain conclusions drawn by the learned single Judge in respect of the nature of entity which the Centre is and that is the reason learned counsel for the appellant refused to give up the appeal stating that though the original cause of action may have been extinguished, the appellant Centre has a right to agitate the appeal on the question of law decided by the impugned judgement. We may notice that an endeavour was made to work out an amicable solution but the same proved to be futile.

6. In the impugned