Pradeep Kant, Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. - (1.) These are three writ petitions which are being decided by a common judgement and order.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. L.P. Misra, apart from arguing the writ petitions on merits, submitted that in view of the undertaking given by the respondents' counsel that they will not use the disputed property, namely, the building which they have constructed for the purpose but they have started running the college, in which they have admitted students, the respondents cannot be allowed to be heard because of the aforesaid conduct.
(3.) Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the institution about 300 students have been admitted and they are continuing with their studies and realising that a mistake has been committed by the respondents, they had furnished an unconditional apology and, therefore, their apology be accepted and the matter be heard on merit. His further submission is that it is the sole discretion of the Court to take any action or to accept the apology, in case the undertaking has been violated but no indefeasible right has accrued in favour of the petitioners for seeking a direction for not allowing the respondents to argue the matter on merits.;