Petitioners challenged a penalty of ₹5000 imposed by office order while their appeal was pending before the JNU Vice Chancellor. The Court held the writ premature, directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two weeks, and permitted revival if it failed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SOURYA MAJUMDAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Prakriti Rastogi and Mr. Azad Bansala, Advocates
versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Monika Arora with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, Advocate, for JNU
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L) % 12.03.2024
1. This writ petition assails the office order dated 8 February 2024, whereby a penalty of ₹ 5000/- has been imposed on the petitioners consequent to certain findings having arrived against them.
2. Mr. Saha, learned Counsel for the respondent points out that the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which is the Vice Chancellor of the JNU on 19 February 2024 and that, therefore, this writ petition is pre-mature.
3. The only submission of Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners desire to participate in the student elections and that, therefore, they have instituted the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITWP (C) 3679/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 14:56:46
Page 1 of 2
4. In my view, the reasons cited cannot be treated as so emergent and urgent as would justify this Court entertaining the present writ petition, even while the appeal is pending before the learned appellate authority.
5. Mr. Saha submits, on instructions, that the appellate authority would positively take a decision on the petitioners’ appeal within two weeks from today.
6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent to ensure that the petitioners’ appeal is finally disposed of by the appellate authority within two weeks from today and no more.
7. Should the petitioners remain aggrieved by any decision taken by the appellate authority, they are at liberty to take their remedies thereagainst in accordance with law.
8. Should the appellate authority fail to take a decision within two weeks and communicate it to the petitioners forthwith, the petitioners would be permitted to revitalise this writ petition by moving an appropriate application without having to come afresh.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 12, 2024 dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJITWP (C) 3679/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 14:56:46
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition against a penalty of Rs. 5000/- should be entertained while the petitioners' appeal before the appellate authority (Vice Chancellor) is pending.
Sourya Majumdar and Ors
Jawaharlal Nehru University
C. Hari Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
