HARSH BISHNOI Vs. HASHIM ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed on the ground of the alleged disobedience to the following order passed by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member : -

(2.) The contempt petition was filed on May 19, 1986 arraying Sri Hashim Ali, the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University as well as the Controller of Examinations of the said University, namely, Sri N. Moinuddin. While admitting the petition on the same date this Court directed the respondents to be personally present in the Court on July 28, 1986. The respondents put in appearance in the petition which remained pending for some time before the learned single Judge (Hon'ble A. N. Dikshita, J.) who was hearing contempt petitions. The case was listed on several dates but could not be disposed of for one reason or another. It appears that the respondents felt aggrieved by this Court's not dispensing with their personal presence and by the continued pendency of the petition here. Consequently they approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which has been disposed of with the following directions : - "The personal attendance of the petitioner in the contempt petition is dispensed with. The contempt petition will be heard by Justice A. N. Varma whose order is said to have not been complied with. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly."

(3.) That is how the matter is before me. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it seems necessary to briefly set out the background in which the aforesaid directions were issued by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition No.15201 of 1984. The petitioner was a student of Vth Year B.Sc. (Engineering) in the 1983-84 session in the Aligarh Muslim University. He was, however, detained from appearing at the examination because of shortage of attendance. Before the order of detention was passed he had already appeared at the Sessional and Practical examination and had also submitted his Project Report. He challenged the order detaining him by means of a petition No.6181 of 1984 which was dismissed by this Court on July 19, 1984 whereupon he sought and was granted re-admission as a regular student in the next academic session i.e. 1984-85. However, after having secured his re-admission he again filed a petition (No. 15201 of 1984) on Nov. 13, 1984 challenging the order detaining him for the session 1983-84 and claiming certain reliefs and obtained an interim mandamus from this Court on Mar. 22, 1985 whereby he was provisionally permitted to appear at the annual examination to be held in May 1985. It appears that he failed in some papers and was consequently permitted to appear at the supplementary examination, held in Sept./Oct., 1985. The case of the respondent University is that he was found resorting to the use of unfair means at the supplementary examination as a result of which his supplementary examination for the year 1984-85 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the annual examination for 1985-86.