Shiv Shankar Vs. Vinoba Bhave University and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - in 1992, he failed in part i examination. petitioner also cannot complain that the university has taken such steps after 13 years, because only after petitioner moved for the original certificate, all these illegalities were detected and the said actions were taken.orderr.k. merathia, j.1. mr. u.k. shikarwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was admitted in b.sc. (hon's) for the session 1990-93 in bokaro steel city college under vinoba bhave university, hazaribagh. in 1992, he failed in part i examination. in 1993 also, he could not appear in the examinations of part i and ii. however, in the examination of part i held in january, 1994, he passed on 10.6.1994 but he was allowed to sit in examination for part ii in may 1994. he passed part ii examination on 10.8.1994 and then he took part in part iii examination in september 1994, which he passed in december 1994. the provisional pass certificate and migration certificate were issued in 1995. thereafter, he got llb degree from bhagalpur university and is continuing with his llm course. when he applied for enrolment with bar council, the original graduation certificate was asked for. accordingly, petitioner requested for original graduation certificate from university. the university asked for the original mark sheets, which he applied. thereafter, by the impugned order, his mark-sheet and the provisional pass certificate of graduation were cancelled. mr. shikarwar submitted that such action after 13 years will be very harsha and it will adversely affect the career of the petitioner and therefore the said order contained in memo no. 386 dated 1.10.2007 (annexure-15) be quashed and the university be directed to declare the result and issue pass certificate of graduation in favour of the petitioner.2. mr. r.k. singh, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand referring to clause 6 of courses of study (annexure-c) submitted that unless a student passes part i examination, he cannot sit in part ii examination and similarly unless he passes part ii examination, he cannot sit in part iii examination but in this case petitioner sat in may, 1994 for part ii examination before the result of part i examination was declared on 10.6.1994 and accordingly the result of part ii examination and consequently the result of part iii examination both were liable to be cancelled. he further submitted that this position was known to the petitioner. moreover, action has been taken against the erring officers.3. on this, mr. shikarwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he may be given a chance to clear part ii and part iii examination so that llb degree and continuance for llm course may not be adversely affected.4. petitioner cannot plead ignorance about courses of study. admittedly, he sat in part ii examination in may 1994, whereas the result of part i was declared thereafter i.e. in june 1994. accordingly, the result of part ii examination became illegal and consequently the result of part iii examination also became illegal. petitioner also cannot complain that the university has taken such steps after 13 years, because only after petitioner moved for the original certificate, all these illegalities were detected and the said actions were taken.5. however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, i am inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to appear in b.sc. (hon's) part ii examination and after passing it, he can appear in part iii examination from bokaro steel city college.if petitioner makes applications for appearing in the said examinations in accordance with law, the college/university will allow him to sit in the said examinations.if petitioner passes the said examinations within two years from today, his llb degree will not be disturbed.6. with these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Mr. U.K. Shikarwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was admitted in B.Sc. (Hon's) for the session 1990-93 in Bokaro Steel City College under Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. In 1992, he failed in Part I examination. In 1993 also, he could not appear in the examinations of Part I and II. However, in the examination of Part I held in January, 1994, he passed on 10.6.1994 but he was allowed to sit in examination for Part II in May 1994. He passed Part II examination on 10.8.1994 and then he took part in Part III examination in September 1994, which he passed in December 1994. The Provisional pass certificate and Migration certificate were issued in 1995. Thereafter, he got LLB degree from Bhagalpur University and is continuing with his LLM course. When he applied for enrolment with Bar Council, the original Graduation Certificate was asked for. Accordingly, petitioner requested for original Graduation Certificate from University. The University asked for the original mark sheets, which he applied. Thereafter, by the impugned order, his mark-sheet and the Provisional pass certificate of Graduation were cancelled. Mr. Shikarwar submitted that such action after 13 years will be very harsha and it will adversely affect the career of the petitioner and therefore the said order contained in Memo No. 386 dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure-15) be quashed and the University be directed to declare the result and issue pass certificate of Graduation in favour of the petitioner.

2. Mr. R.K. Singh, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand referring to clause 6 of Courses of Study (Annexure-C) submitted that unless a student passes Part I examination, he cannot sit in Part II examination and similarly unless he passes Part II examination, he cannot sit in Part III examination but in this case petitioner sat in May, 1994 for Part II examination before the result of Part I examination was declared on 10.6.1994 and accordingly the result of Part II examination and consequently the result of Part III examination both were liable to be cancelled. He further submitted that this position was known to the petitioner. Moreover, action has been taken against the erring officers.

3. On this, Mr. Shikarwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he may be given a chance to clear Part II and Part III examination so that LLB degree and continuance for LLM course may not be adversely affected.

4. Petitioner cannot plead ignorance about courses of study. Admittedly, he sat in Part II examination in May 1994, whereas the result of Part I was declared thereafter i.e. in June 1994. Accordingly, the result of Part II examination became illegal and consequently the result of Part III examination also became illegal. Petitioner also cannot complain that the University has taken such steps after 13 years, because only after petitioner moved for the original certificate, all these illegalities were detected and the said actions were taken.

5. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to appear in B.Sc. (Hon's) Part II examination and after passing it, he can appear in Part III examination from Bokaro Steel City College.

If petitioner makes applications for appearing in the said examinations in accordance with law, the College/University will allow him to sit in the said examinations.

If petitioner passes the said examinations within two years from today, his LLB degree will not be disturbed.

6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.