Date Office Notes, reports, orders or…
The cost imposed upon the petitioner is made easy.
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.
| SL. No Dat e |
Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|
| 0 9 .0 2 .2 026 | WPSB No. 439 of 2025 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J. Hon’ble Su bh ash Upadh yay, J. 1. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner- review applicant. 2. Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Abdul Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. Delay Con don at ion Applicat ion ( I A No.0 3 of 2 0 2 6 ) |
|
| 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant- |
||
petitioner. 5. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application duly supported with an affidavit, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 11 days is condoned. Rev iew Applicat ion ( MCC No.0 2 of 2 0 2 5 ) |
||
| 6. Heard Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel in support of the review application and learned counsel for the respondent- University. 7. After making submissions at some length, Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking relief in respect of the cost imposed upon the |
| petitioner. He has invited our attention towards | the |
|---|---|
| recitals in the judgment under review wherein it stated that the petitioner has disclosed complete fa |
is cts, |
| including the fact relating to the order of the Supre | me |
| Court dated 16.09.2024 in Civil Appeal arising out | of |
| SLP (C) Nos.8788-8789 of 2023. He submits that such circumstances, there would be no justification imposing exemplary cost of Rupees Five Lakhs u |
in for pon |
| the applicant- petitioner. | |
| 8. Learned counsel for the University has |
no |
| objection in case the cost is made easy. 9. Having regard to the submissions made, rev application is allowed only to the extent cost has b imposed and accordingly, cost is made easy. 10. Review application stands disposed accordingly. |
iew een of |
| ( Su bh ash Up ad h y ay , J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J. 09.02.2026 09.02.2026 NI SHANT |
) |
Petitioner
University
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Subhash Upadhay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
