Dismissed

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council v. Rksd College of Education,Ambala Road Kaithal

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2010CR/7193/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order appointing local commissioners to inspect a B.Ed. college's infrastructure. The Court held that this appointment was proper to resolve the dispute regarding infrastructure sufficiency and did not amount to evidence collection for the plaintiffs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No.7193 of 2010 (O & M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.7193 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 02.11.2010.

¶5

Northern Regional Committee

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

R.K. S.D. College of Education and others ……Respondents

¶9

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶10

Present: Mr. V. S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶11

Defendant No.1-Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn order dated 10.09.2010 Annexure P-11 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal thereby appointing Local Commission consisting of two Commissioners for inspecting the college being run by plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to report about the infrastructure available in the college for running Bachelor of Education Course. The Commissioners have been authorized to conduct videography and photography, if required. Assistance of draftsman may also be taken, if required.

¶12

Plaintiffs were running B.Ed. College with intake of 200 students, but on the basis of report of visiting team which inspected the college of plaintiffs on 20.09.2009, defendant No.1 de-recognised the college on the ground of lack of infrastructure. On appeal

¶13

C.R. No.7193 of 2010 (O & M) -2-

¶14

preferred by the plaintiff, defendant No.2-National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi allowed appeal partly permitting intake of 100 students instead of 200 students. The plaintiffs have filed suit for mandatory injunction claiming various reliefs including intake of 200 students. Plaintiffs moved application for appointment of Local Commissioner to report about the infrastructure available in the college of the plaintiffs. The said application has been allowed by the trail Court by impugned order.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Local Commissioners appointed by the trial Court include an Advocate and a member of the visiting team out of the list submitted by defendant No.1, but the Advocate has no expertise to report about the infrastructure requirement for running the B.Ed. College and it is the prerogative of defendant No.1 to appoint visiting team to report about the infrastructure available.

¶17

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Admittedly there is dispute between the parties regarding the sufficiency of the infrastructure available with the college of the plaintiffs. In view thereof, it is imperative to obtain report of the infrastructure available in the college of the plaintiffs. Local Commissioners have, therefore, been rightly appointed by the trial Court to report about the availability of the said infrastructure. An Advocate may not be in expert from the angle of defendant No.1petitioner, but an Advocate can certainly report about the availability of the accommodation, land and furniture etc. Moreover,

¶18

C.R. No.7193 of 2010 (O & M) -3-

¶19

videography and photography have also been permitted. Services of draftsman has also been permitted as per impugned order. In addition to it, the trial Court has taken precaution to include a member from the list of visiting team members, submitted by defendant No.1 as one of the two Local Commissioners. The said member, as per defendant No.1-petitioner, is an expert member and, therefore, the Commission can well be executed with aid of the said expert member. Appointment of Local Commissioners would not amount to collecting of evidence on behalf of plaintiffs as sought to be argued by counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, when the quantum of infrastructure available in the college is in controversy, the only proper method is to appoint Local Commissioner to bring first hand information about the infrastructure availability at the spot.

¶20

If the petitioner acts arbitrarily, the aggrieved party should have some remedy to assert its claim and since petitioner is asserting that infrastructure is inadequate and insufficient, the plaintiffs were left with no option but to seek appointment of Local Commissioner to report about the available infrastructure.

¶21

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is completely misconceived and devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶22

02.11.2010.

¶23

A. Kaundal

¶24

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council v. Rksd College of Education,Ambala Road Kaithal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Northern Regional Committee Nation Council v. Rksd College of Education,Ambala Road Kaithal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarlok Singh Vs Randhir Chlotra & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Heera Lal

Subhash Vs Uhbvnl & Ors.

Harbhajan Singh @ Midha @ Chhinda & Another Vs State of Punjab & Others

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.