High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/671/2016disposed of

Ajay Jangra v. Parveen Saini

2017-03-21Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

COCP No. 671 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH COCP No. 671 of 2016 Date of decision : 21.03.2017 Ajay Jangra ....Petitioner V/s Praveen Saini ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

In the instant petition, petitioner alleges violation of order dated 20.01.2005 passed by writ court. Operative part whereof reads as under:- "Considering the above-said respective stands taken by the learned counsel for the parties, instant writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to supply the requisite information sought from him by the respondentUniversity vide communication dated 17.2.2014 (Annexure R5), within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the competent authority of the respondent-University shall consider and decide the matter at an early date by passing an appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law but in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of information from the petitioner.

With the above-said observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of. " Admittedly, case of the petitioner has already been considered and a speaking order dated 03.07.2015 had already been passed. This was in Ajay Kumar 2017.03.22 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document view of the fact that petitioner was having a PhD. degree from Singhania

COCP No. 671 of 2016 University. Stand of the respondent is that order has to be reviewed as it received information that Singhania University was not competent to grant PhD. decree without a candidate being regular student thereof. Petitioner was never an in campus student. It, thus reviewed its order and passed fresh order dated 07.07.2016 withdrawing the benefits granted to petitioner on the basis of a PhD. degree.

Petitioner, however, contends that he was a regular student of the Singhania University.

Considering the fact that disputed facts are involved, no case for further proceedings under the contempt jurisdiction is made out. Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, if so advised.

March 21, 2017 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Ajay Kumar 2017.03.22 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document