S.R. MEHROTRA Vs. NISHA AWASTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Dr. S.R. Mehrotra, Professor and Chairman History Department, Himachal Pradesh University, Simla filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88, against the H. P. University, Miss Nisha Awasthi and others. The writ was field by way of public interest litigation Ms. Nisha Awasthi was granted provisional admission in M. Sc. Chemistry Degree Course, First Semester-in 1987-88 Session in the month of November, 1987 against 'cultural quota' and according to the petitioner such action on the part of the University was totally wrong and illegal against the Ordance framed by the University. On July 18, 1988 a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ petit-ion by passing the following operative order :

(2.) THE petitioner, Professor Mehrotra filed the present contempt petition on 29-101988 in this court. It has been alleged in the petition that in the Writ Petition No. 96/88, the Court had issued an order on 4-5-1988 which among other things said the following:

(3.) I have heard the petitioner who argued the petition himself as well as Sh Chhabil Dass appearing for Miss Nisha Awasthi. I may state that there can be no contempt committed by any person in approaching a superior court against any decision given by the lower court. There was no undertaking given by Miss Awasthi or by her counsel that they will not go in appeal to the Supreme Court against any order or final decision given by High Court in Writ Petition No. 96/88. If Mis. Awasthi was aggrieved against the decision given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 96/88 on July 18, 1988 she had a legal right to challenge the aforesaid decision in the Supreme Court and the filing of S. L. P. in the Supreme Courts can by no stretch of imagination be said to be an act which may amount, to contempt of Court. The petitioner had no justification at all in moving the present contempt petition for such act of the Respondent Miss Awasthi and it is an abuse of any right being claimed under the plea of "public interest litigation". Even if for argument sake, it may be considered that the ultimate decision given by this Court on July 18, 1988 was based on the report of a Committee for which the counsel of Miss Awathi had given consent, even, then there can be no contempt in case Miss Awasthi wanted to challenge the judgment dated July 18, 1988 in the Supreme Court. It is further important to note that the Supreme Court, while disposing of the S. L. P. filed by Miss. Awasthi, had granted a relief by giving a clear direction to the University to admit the petitioner (Miss Awasthi) in the next session which was to commence from December, 1988. This order was passed on October 20, 1988 and in spite of that the present contempt petition was filed in this Court on October 29, 1988.