Suresh Kumar Singhal vs S.K.Khetarpal and ors.

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

The facts giving rise to the filing of the contempt petition may be noticed in the first instance in order to appreciate the question which is involved herein. The petitioner challenged the admissions made in M.D. Course in Government Medical College, Patiala and, Amritsar by way of filing of a Civil Writ Petition No. 8789 of 1991. The writ petition initially came up for hearing'' before a Division Bench of this Court on 8.6.1991, when notice of motion was issued for'' 176.1991. The counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents on the aforementioned date and the case was adjourned to 11.7.1991. The reply was filed on 12.7.1991 on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was finally admitted on 15.7.1991 and the Division Bench passed the following orders :

"Present : Mr. Rajesh Bindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.,

Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, D.A.G. Punjab

Admitted.

It is admitted that a seat in M. D. (Paediatrics) is lying vacant in Government Medical College, Patiala. The petitioner be given admission provisionally against that seat. He shall be entitled to attend the classes as a regular student subject to the decision of this. writ petition. The respondent shall allow the petitioner to deposit the requisite fee. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is ordered that this writ petition be heard in the last week of September, 1991.

Sd/ H S. Rai,

Judge"

July 15, 1991

Sd/ B. S. Nehra,

Judge

Since the petitioner was not admitted as was ordered on 15.7.1991, he filed the resent contempt petition on 22.7.1991, Show cause notice was issued for 26.7.1991. The matter was taken up on aforementioned date. The respondents were directed to appear in person in the Court on 1.8. 1991 to show cause why the action under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against them. JUDGMENT was to be served on the respondents through Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh for 1.8.1991.

On 1.8.1991, appearance was put in on behalf of the respondents and the case was adjourned to 8.8.1991, when reply on behalf of Respondent No. 1 was filed and the matter was adjourned to 1381991. On that day, the case was again adjourned to 20.8,1991. After certain more adjournments, the case has come up for final hearing. During the pendency of the petition, notice was issued to Dr. R. C. Sarin, Principal of the Medical College, Amritsar who is stated to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee for PostGraduate Course of the Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab for the Session 199292. Reply has been filed by Dr. Sarin in the Court today.

During the course of hearing certain facts have remained undisputed. It. has been brought to the notice of this Court that a letter was written by the Principal, Medical College, Patiala to the petitioner on 26.7.1991 attached as Annexure P/4 with the amended contempt petition asking him to deposit the fee by 8.8.1991. It has been specifically mentioned in the letter (Annexure P/4 that the petitioner was provisionally admitted in the MD (Paediatrics) course, under 60% quota subject to the final decision of the writ petition and his admission was made subject to the confirmation of his eligibility by the Punjabi University, Patiala and issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was clearly, stated in the letter that if the writ petition filed by him goes against him, he was to vacate the seat immediately. It has further remained undisputed before me that up till now, the petitioner has not been allowed to deposit the fee and join the PostGraduate Medical course in Paediatrics.

The only argument advanced by the counsel worth noticing on behalf of the respondent Nos. I and 2 is that during the pendency of the writ petition and even this contempt petition, one Dr. Narinder Singh has been given admission and that too without any bad intention on the part of the authority to jeopardise the rights of the petitioner It has been further argued that Dr. Narinder Singh was ordered to be given admission to Post Graduate Course (Paediatrics) by the Principal, vide his letter dated 4.7.1991, who is stated to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee for Post Graduate Courses of the Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab for the Session 199192.

The counsel for the respondents, apart from making reference to the reply filed earlier, has placed on the record of the case an additional affidavit in which it has been submitted that there is no seat lying vacant in view of the admission of another person Dr Narinder Singh which has taken place in ignorance of the orders passed by this Court for admitting the petitioner. It has been explained in minute details that respondent No. 2 received a letter dated 4th July, 1991 from the Principal, Government Medical College, Amritsar on 8th July, 1991 and thereafter he ordered the admission. of Dr. Narinder Singh vide letter dated 15th July, 1991, Annexure R2/2 and asked him to deposit the fee on 25th July, 1991. Before the expiration of the aforesaid period, that is, 25th July, 1991 the aforesaid Dr. Narinder Singh moved an application before the answering respondent for extension of time for depositing the fee, which was extended upto 4th August, 1991. Dr. Narinder Singh deposited the fee on 1st August, 1991, that is, well before the expiry of period of 4th August, 1991. It has been stated by respondent No. 2 that Dr. Narinder Singh was allowed admission without knowing about the order of this Court dated 15th July, 1991 and that the order of 15th July, 1991 brought to his notice only on 20th July, 1991. Thereafter, he ordered the admission of the petitioner on 26th July, 1991 and, therefore. he cannot be accused of any malafides whatsoever. It has been averred in the additional affidavit that the answering respondent has acted in good faith in a bona fide manner in discharge of his official duties. According to him there is absolutely no action on his part which really amounts to wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.

In the light of the factual position, as noticed above, the question which remains to be decided by this Court is whether the order of this Court has been disobeyed or not and even if this Court reaches a conclusion that there was no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, should this Court insist upon the obedience of the orders passed by the Division Bench.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after giving thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that although no malafides can really be spelt out from the conduct of the respondents that they have wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in view of the explanation given in the add. affidavit, yet the orders of the Division Bench are meant to be complied with. This Court had ordered the admission of the petitioner and that order stands till today. No order was invited from the Division Bench in view of the changed circumstances by the respondents. This Court sitting singly cannot, surely, decline to admit the petitioner, simply because another person who is senior in order of merit has been given admission. This Court while exercising jurisdiction in contempt proceedings can undo the wrongs which have been done to the petitioner and restore status quoante as has been laid down in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, A.I.R. 1991 Madras 323 and Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 155 (SC) : A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 464.

For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the respondents are not guilty of any wilful disobedience and, therefore, they deserve to be discharged. However, the respondents are, directed to admit the petitioner immediately on the production of the copy of the order of this Court, even if an additional seat has to be created because the order of the Court cannot remain unexecuted. The admission would, however, be subject to the decision of the writ petition.

Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the admission of the petitioner would not mean cancellation of the admission of Dr. Narinder Singh. This Court has got least hesitation in accepting the add. affidavit of Dr. Gurmit Singh, Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala Respondent No. 2 to the effect that Dr. Narinder Singh has been given admission without knowing the order dated 15th July, 1991 passed by this Court. Respondent No. 2 has stated in the additional affidavit that Dr. Narinder Singh happens to be senior in order of merit, his admission may not be cancelled

A copy of the order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties on their paying the requisite copying charges.