Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. An order conveyed to the petitioner from the Secretary to the Governor/ Chancellor, U. P. aggrieves the petitioner and hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Order is No. E-8489/G. S. (11-G. S. (68)/87-XVI dated November 18, 1987). The Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University in a matter arising out of the constitution of the Managing Committee of the D.A.V. Degree College, Muzaffarnagar passed an order dated 13th August 1987. This Court at present is making no comments upon the order passed by Vice-Chancellor. This order of the Vice-Chancellor was impugned earlier by a writ petition presented before a Bench comprising of Hon'ble B. N. Sapru, J. and Hon'ble Ravi S. Dhavan, J. On the presentation of the writ petition before the Bench the High Court referred the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act. In pursuance of the order of the Bench of this Court, a representation was filed before the learned Chancellor, and this representation is pending.
(3.) ALONG with its representation, the petitioner Managing Committee sought under Section 68 of the Act, aforesaid, a prayer for an ad interim relief. This prayer for an ad interim relief was not rejected on merits, but not entertained on the ground that there is no provision under the Act, aforesaid, to grant an ad interim relief. This is what was conveyed to the petitioner by the Secretary of the learned Chancellor by communication of 18th November 1987, aforesaid. This order is impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner seeks interference by this Court to the effect that an ad interim relief be granted. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition by granting a stay order but has no hesitation in saying that the communication conveyed to the petitioner dated November 18, 1987 is in total ignorance of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, aforesaid. While the petitioner's representation seeking an ad interim relief from the learned Chancellor was being processed in the secretariat one only had to see the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, to see in print that there is a discretion vested in the learned Chancellor to consider the prayer for an ad interim relief. It is apparent that the communication delivered to the petitioner on November 18, 1987 overlooks the provision under which the petitioner was seeking a stay order. The matter, it appears was never placed before the learned Chancellor.;