Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2280
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
Shree Vijay Shanti Suri Education Trust & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Arun Kumar Purohit & Ors. - Respondents
Cont.Cas(C) 1042 of 2019
Decided on : 02-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Devyani Ashna, Mr. Kunal Gosain and Ms. Pallavi Mohan, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Suman Chauhan, Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC with Ms. Sanjna Dua and Mr. Tushar Mathur, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave and Mr. Kumar Prashant, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Addl. Adv. General with Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Adv
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in deciding not to take coercive action in a contempt petition, considering the university's assurance to conduct separate exams for the enrolled students.
Headnote:
Contempt Petition - Breach of Court Order - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, Section 13(A) - Summary: The court dealt with a contempt petition based on the alleged breach of an order related to the establishment of an Ayurveda college. The college's application for recognition was initially rejected, but subsequent court orders directed reconsideration. The Central Government's failure to communicate its rejection of the application led to confusion and the enrollment of students. The court ultimately decided not to take coercive action in the contempt petition, considering the university's assurance to conduct separate exams for the enrolled students.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition stemmed from the alleged breach of an order related to the establishment of an Ayurveda college. The college's application for recognition was initially rejected, but subsequent court orders directed reconsideration. The Central Government's failure to communicate its rejection of the application led to confusion and the enrollment of students.
Finding of the Court:
The court decided not to take coercive action in the contempt petition, considering the university's assurance to conduct separate exams for the enrolled students.
Issues: The issues involved the breach of court orders, confusion arising from the Central Government's failure to communicate its rejection of the college's application, and the enrollment of students based on the court's previous order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision not to take coercive action in the contempt petition was influenced by the university's assurance to conduct separate exams for the enrolled students.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was closed, and the university was expected to abide by its assurances regarding the enrolled students.
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
1. The captioned contempt petition is pivoted on the alleged breach and/or non-compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10840/2019 and CM No. 44879/2019.
Background:-
2. For disposal of this contempt petition, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: 2.1. Petitioner No. 2 is an Ayurveda college. It is run under the aegis of petitioner No. 1 trust. Petitioner No. 2 College filed an application dated 31.05.2017 with the Central Government for establishing a new college.
2.2. The application, in effect, sought permission to offer qualification in BAMS-UG course. It was proposed by petitioner No. 2 College that it should be allowed an intake of sixty students. The application related to Academic Session 2018-19.
2.3. This application was rejected by the Central Government on 31.07.2017.
2.4. The said decision of the Central Government was challenged by the petitioners by way of a writ petition which was filed in the Rajasthan High Court. The writ petition was numbered as D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1335/2018. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 28.08.2018 disposed of the writ petition with a direction for reconsideration of petitioner No. 2 college’s application. By the very same order, directions were also issued to the effect that inspection of the petitioner No. 2 College should be held and recognition should be granted within two weeks of the applications so forwarded by the Central Government.
2.5. Accordingly, the Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short ‘CCIM’) on 12.10.2018 appointed visitors to undertake inspection of petitioner No. 2 College. The inspection was carried out on 13.10.2018.
2.6. In the inspection, deficiencies were noticed, which led the Central Government to issue a show cause notice dated 1.11.2018 (in short ‘SCN’). Via the SCN, the petitioner No. 2 College was directed to appear before the Hearing Committee of the Central Government on 08.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioners that they gave a detailed response at the hearing held on 08.11.2018.
2.7. Evidently, the Central Government was not impressed with the response of the petitioners which led to the passing of the order dated 14.11.2018. In effect, via this order the Central Government declined issuance of a Letter of intent (LOI) and furthermore disapproved the scheme presented by petitioner No. 1 trust. This order, however, was not communicated to the petitioners.
2.8. Given this situation, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. (C) No. 12398/2018 alleging inaction by the CCIM. A single Judge of this Court, accordingly, on 19.11.2018 passed the following order:-
“1. The Petitioner is an Ayurved College which applied, on 31st May, 2017, to the Central Council of Indian Medicine, being the competent authority in this regard, for recognition, under Section 13(A) of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, for 60 seats in the Under Graduate course in Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery (UG-BAMS).
2. The application was initially rejected, by Respondent No.2 on the ground of it’s having been submitted after the prescribed cut-off date. However, vide order dated 28th August, 2018, in D.B. Spl Appl. Writ No.1335/2018, the High Court of Rajasthan, directed Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner, hold an inspection and accord recognition within two weeks of receipt of the inspection report.
3. It is stated that inspection, by the representatives of Respondent No.2, of the petitioner College, took place on 13th October, 2018, resulting in the issuance, to the petitioner, of a show cause notice, dated 1st November, 2018, alleging certain deficiencies in the petitioner College, and calling upon the petitioner to represent before Respondent No.2 in that regard on 8th November, 2018.
4. The petitioner, apparently, appeared before Respondent No.2 on 8thNovember, 2018, but no decision has been taken thereafter.
5. It is in these circums
