STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ISHA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this order we propose to dispose of all these appeals as common questions of law an fact are involved in all these cases. During the pendency of the 25 complaints before the District Forum below, all were ordered to be consolidated, vide order dated 7.5.2003, passed in Complaint No. 01/2003 i.e. Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. and others. This order for ready reference is extracted herein below: - "7.5.2003. Present: Mr. Manish Kishore, vice for the comp. Mr. AS Shah, Adv. For OP No.4. Mr. Lekh Ram has appeared for the OP No.3. None for the OP No.5 hence exparte despite service. Ops No.1 & 2 not present. It is stated that these complaints No. 1/03 to complaint No.24/03 pertains to the same cause of action and those be consolidated. Request is allowed and all these complaints are ordered to be consolidated with complaint No.1/2003 titled as Smt. Isha Anand Vs. State. Let Fresh notice to the Ops No.1 & 2 be issued now again for 27.06.03. Sd/ - President Sd/ - . Sd/ - Member Member"

(2.) In the complaints filed by private respondent complainants before us, the appellants, Himachal Pradesh University, The Administrator IITT Kala Aamb, Himachal Pradesh and Ms. Rama Sinha ME Ex - Chairperson of IITT Kala Amb, were the opposite parties. Another fact that needs to be mentioned before proceeding further in these cases is that, after consolidation, replies were filed by the opposite parties in Complaint No.1/2003, and were treated and real as such in all other complaints. Pursuant to the advertisement Annexure R -1 (its copy is at page -25 of the complaint file alongwith the reply of the appellants), issued by appellant No.2 in obedience to the Direction of Honble High Court of Delhi, he issued admission notice inviting applications for admission to second year of Year B -Tech Degree courses in the discipline of Information Technology. He had further stated in this notice that, this was as per order of the Honble High Court of Delhi. It was also mentioned in this advertisement itself that seats to be filed in by lateral entry and migration in second year of engineering were subject to the decision of the Honble Court. Thus it manifestly clear that Annexure R -1 was not issued by appellant No.2 of his own but under the court order.

(6.) During the course of hearing it was again not disputed on behalf of the parties that appellants also approached the Honble supreme Court against the order pursuant to which Annexure R -1 was issued, but the petition was dismissed. This in our opinion further establishes the bona -fides on the part of the appellants that they did whatever was possible to protect the interest of the private respondents -complainants, but were unsuccessful. In these circumstances, we feel that both of them cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation nor the private respondents -complainants had any cause of action against them i.e. the appellants. Reason being that if the appellant No.2 did not carry out the order of the Honble Delhi High Court, then he would have intentionally disobeyed the same and exposed himself for action of disobeying the court order. And after he had obeyed the same, appellants are being now made to pay the compensation as is evident from the above extracted paragraph from the impugned order.