Decided on August 13,2012



TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) WRIT petition no. 1173 of 2011 is being considered as leadingpetition along with other writ petition no. 1040 (MS) of 2011 and writpetition no. 1113 (MS) of 2011. Before the hearing of all the writ petition could begin, Sri B.D.Upadhyay, the learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vikas Pande,Advocate, submitted that another writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012should also be tagged along with these petitions and may be heard withthis bunch of writ petitions. This petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 is listedtoday in the court under Chapter 12 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE office report shows that steps has not been taken to serverespondent no. 5. However, a photocopy of the first page of the noticehas been shown indicating that notice on behalf of respondent no. 5 hasbeen served to Sri Vishal Kumar, Advocate, who is also present in theCourt. Consequently, the court finds that all the respondents in writpetition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 are served. But no counter affidavit hasbeen filed. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, the learned Senior Counsel, present for thepetitioners, submitted that in the proceedings before the DeputyRegistrar, the petitioners had raised an objection by filing an applicationdated 08.05.2010 (Annexure No. 33 to the writ petition) inspite of which,the Deputy Registrar has not considered their application and has passedthe impugned orders dated 28th March, 2011 and 7th April, 2011. THElearned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 in writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 have unanimously raised a preliminary objection to themaintainability of the writ petition. According to the respondents, thepetitioners have no locus standi, as the petitioners have never managedthe Institution in question and consequently has no cause of action toquestion the impugned orders. It was also urged that the said petitionerwas not a party in the proceeding before the court below and that thepetitioner had never approached the Deputy Registrar by filing anyapplication. It was also urged that the impugned orders are of March,2011 and April, 2011 whereas the writ petition was filed in July, 2012and that no explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition has beengiven and consequently the writ petition should be dismissed on theground of laches. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat they were unaware of the impugned orders and the writ petition wasfiled at the earliest opportune moment. Initially an impleadmentapplication was filed in one of the writ petition, which was rejected witha liberty to file a separate writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds thatthere appears to be an application dated 08.05.2010, filed before theDeputy Registrar. The question is whether the said application has beenfiled before the Deputy Registrar or not which has to be verified andconsequently, the Court directs the learned Additional Advocate General,appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 to file a counter affidavit in writpetition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 within a period of two weeks indicatingtherein as to whether such application dated 08.05.2012 was actuallyfiled by the petitioner and if filed, what action on that application hasbeen taken by the Deputy Registrar. The explanation given by the petitioner for the delay appears to besketchy and, consequently, an opportunity is given to the petitioner toexplain the delay in filing the writ petition, for which a supplementaryaffidavit may be filed within two weeks. The objection raised by therespondents with regard to the maintainability and delay would beconsidered on the next date and it would be open to all the respondents inthis writ petition to file a counter affidavit, if they so desire. The Courtalso directs the Additional Advocate General to produce the record ofDeputy Registrar, Haldwani on the next date. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed today in writ petition no. 1113 (MS) of 2011 is taken on record. This order will govern in all the writ petitions.
(3.) IT is made clear that on the next date, the matter would be heard anddecided on merit on a day-to-day basis for which the Court fixes 20thSeptember, 2012. If on the said date, the hearing is not completed for anyreason, the hearing would continue on the next date. In the meantime, itis open to any of the parties in any of the writ petitions to complete theaffidavits, if they so desire. Interim order, passed in any of the connected writ petition, isextended till the next date of listing. Connect with writ petition no. 1459 (MS) of 2012 with the leadingpetition no. 1173 (MS) of 2011.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.