Dismissed

Pacific Academy v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 May 2018WRW/105/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged an earlier judgment interpreting a UGC notification as retrospective. The Court held that merits disputes cannot be entertained in review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and disagreed with the Bombay High Court's contrary view, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 74 days condoned; rule dismissed holding merits not maintainable in review.

Pacific Academy Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Review Petition No.105/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17933/2017

¶5

Pacific Academy of Higher Education & Research University, Through the Registrar, Pacific Hills, Pratapnagar Extn. Airport Road, Debari, Udaipur-313003.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, College Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Department of College Education, Through Commissioner, Block-IV, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302015.

¶10

University Grants Commission Through Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Delhi 110012.

¶11

Dr. Imran Kazmi S/o Shri Azfr Kazmi, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Professors Colony, Nawab Bahadur Road, Patna City, Patna (Bihar)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.N. Kumawat

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

08/05/2018

¶17

The matter comes up on an application No.17940/2018

¶18

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The delay of 74 days in filing the review petition is condoned.

¶19

Heard on the review petition.

¶20

The only point agitated in this review petition by

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[WRW-105/2018]

¶23

Mr.S.N. Kumawat counsel for the petitioner is that this Court’s interpretation of the UGC notification dated 6.7.2015 as clarificatory and hence retrospective is not sustainable and in fact the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of

¶24

Dr.Sanjay Tejbahadur Singh vs. The Registrar, Savitribai Phule Pune University & Others , Writ Petition No.6978/2015 decided on 26.07.2017 has held that it was prospective in nature.

¶25

I am of the considered view that the argument agitated in this review petition is one on merits and cannot be entertained within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. And in any event the order of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr.Sanjay Tejbahadur (supra) is not binding on this Court and with which this Court in any event disagrees in so far as it hold UGC’s letter of 4.9.2015 iterating its earlier letter dated 6.7.2015 as prospective. The finding of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is without any reasons for a ratio decidendi to be celled out therefrom and to constitute a precedent. As held in this Court’s detailed judgment dated 21.12.2017, the said UGC directive dated 6.7.2015 was only clarificatory and hence operated retrospectively.

¶26

I find no force in this review petition. Dismissed.

¶27

(ALOK SHARMA), J.

¶28

Himanshu/125

Pacific Academy v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pacific Academy v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Nitin Saini Vs State of Rasjasthan

Mohammad Safiq Vs Miss Heena and Ors.

Man Singh Yadav Vs Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman S S C

Jaikam Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shekh Salim Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Hatturam and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp