Disposed

Anisha Chawla v. Dr D P Puniya and Others

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2015CCP/769/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Rajasthan High Court disposed of a contempt petition filed for alleged violation of Supreme Court directions on medical admissions. The court held no case was made out against most respondents but directed the petitioner to file a fresh petition once specific defaulting officials are identified.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed with liberty to file a fresh petition for determination of responsible defaulting officials.

Anisha Chawla Vs Dr D P Puniya and Others — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Contempt Petition No.769/2013 Anisha Chawla

¶6

versus

¶7

Dr DP Punia, Principal Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Science and Technology, Jaipur & ors

¶8

Date of Order :

¶9

17^th August, 2015

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶11

Mr Rajendra Soni – for petitioner

¶12

Mr NM Lodha, Advocate General with Mr Vishal Sharma – for respondent No.6

¶13

Mr Sanjeev Singhal, Dy GC

¶14

Mr Ashok Gaur, Sr Advocate with Mr Ajatshatru Mina – for respondent No.1and 2

¶15

Mr RN Mathur, Sr Advocate with Mr Sanjay Nahar and Mr Tanveer Ahmed – for respondent No.7

¶16

Mr Angad Mirdha – for respondent No.5

¶17

BY THE COURT:

¶18

This contempt petition has been filed in reference to

¶19

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajan Purohit & ors versus Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur & ors”[JT 2012 (8) SC 265]. Therein, Hon'ble Supreme Court gave liberty to file contempt petition before the High Court having jurisdiction, if there is violation of various directions. The directions given in the said judgment have been reproduced in the

¶20

memo of contempt petition and, for convenience, they are

¶21

¶22

reproduced hereasunder -

¶23

“31. All these directions shall be complied with by all concerned, including Union of India, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, State Governments, Universities and medical and dental colleges and the management of the respective universities or dental and medical colleges. Any default in compliance with these conditions or attempt to overreach these directions shall, without fail, invite the following consequences and penal actions:-

¶24

a) Every body, officer or authority who disobeys or avoids or fails to strictly comply with these directions stricto sensu shall be liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Liberty is granted to any interested party to take out the contempt proceedings before the High Court having jurisdiction over such Institution/State, etc.

¶25

b) The person, member or authority found responsible for any violation shall be departmentally proceeded against and punished in accordance with the Rules. We make it clear that violation of these directions or overreaching them by any process shall tantamount to indiscipline, insubordination, misconduct and being unworthy of becoming a public servant.

¶26

c) Such defaulting authority, member or body shall also be liable for action by and personal liability to third parties who might have suffered losses as a result of such default.

¶27

d) There shall be due channelization of selection and admission process with full cooperation and coordination between the

¶28

¶29

Government of India, State Government, Universities, Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and the colleges concerned. They shall act in tandem and strictly as per the prescribed schedule. In other words, there should be complete harmonisation with a view to form a uniform pattern for concerted action, according to the framed scheme, schedule for admission and regulations framed in this behalf.

¶30

e) The college which grants admission for the current academic year, where its recognition/ approval is granted subsequent to 15th July of the current academic year, shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition/ approval on this ground, in addition to being liable to indemnify such students who are denied admission or who are wrongfully given admission in the college.

¶31

f) Upon the expiry of one week after holding of the second counselling, the unfilled seats from all quotas shall be deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respective States and shall be filled thereafter strictly on the basis of merit obtained in the competitive entrance test.

¶32

g) It shall be mandatory on the part of each college and University to inform the State and the Central Government/ competent authority of the seats which are lying vacant after each counselling and they shall furnish the complete details, list of seats filled and vacant in the respective states, immediately after each counselling.

¶33

h) No college shall fill up its seats in any other manner.”

¶34

The paras quoted above show authority of the court to

¶35

¶36

take cognizance for contempt of the Court, if the directions are flouted.

¶37

It is stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “PA Inamdar & ors versus State of Maharashtra & ors”, (2005) 6 SCC 537 has been flouted. The issue in reference to it has been raised and decided today separately in CW 15287/2013 and 16412/2013. Therein, action of private medical colleges/ universities was found to be bona fide in peculiar facts and circumstances while it was not so accepted for the State authorities. A direction has been given to hold enquiry against defaulting officials and cost has also been awarded to the petitioners which is to be recovered from defaulting government officials.

¶38

In the light of the detailed discussions made in the judgment while deciding both the writ petitions today, so far as contemnors No.1 to 5 and 7 are concerned, I do not find that a case of contempt of the court is made out against them. So far as respondent No.6 is concerned, he was the Principal Secretary of the Department and was under an obligation to monitor working of the government in consonance to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶39

¶40

The responsibility of government official/s is to be fixed as per the directions given in the writ petitions decided today. Therefore, at this stage, I am not passing any adverse order on the contempt petition, however, contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh contempt petition on determination of responsibility of the defaulting official/s at whose advise follow up action, flouting directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, was taken and who was the person taking follow up action.

¶41

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶42

bnsharma

¶43

All corrections made in judgment/ order been incorporated in judgment/ order being emailed.

¶44

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Anisha Chawla v. Dr D P Puniya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anisha Chawla v. Dr D P Puniya and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ismail Khan and Ors. Vs Hazzan Shakuran and Kors

Dilip Kumar Talesra Vs Vinay Chaurasia and Others

Ramcharan Sharma andANR Vs Brajendra Kumar RAWATandANR

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kamal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp