AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 219 wordsPrashant Kumar Mishra, J
Heard.
This petition has arisen out of the order passed on 03.07.2015 whereby the Executive Counsel of the University was directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal preferred under Section 35 of the Universities Act, 2008.
Admittedly, the appeal was considered and decided on 17-05-2016 vide (Annexure C-2), however, it appears the petitioner later on submitted a representation on 16.11.2016 on which the matter is pending for consideration by a Committee constituted on 09.06.2017 (available at page 15 of the paper book).
It is submitted that since after constitution of the Committee, petitioner's case has not been considered, therefore, the respondents have committed contempt of the lawful authority of this Court.
Bare perusal of the memo dated 09.06.2017 would indicate that the same in pursuance to the petitioner's application dated 16.11.2016 whereas the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 03.07.2015 and the petitioner's appeal was decided vide (Annexure C-2) on 17.05.2016. The memo dated 09. 06. 2017 is a fresh initiation for consideration of petitioner's representation. Whether or not such consideration is lawful, is to be determined in a separate petition, if the petitioner desires to prefer any such petition.
No case for issuing notice to the respondents is made out.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.