CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 14 ,2010 Neera Sehrawat ..... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is struggling hard somehow to get B.D.S degree and for this she has not only been before this Court on more than one occasion but has gone upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court but without any success. Even the change of counsel has not rescued the cause of the petitioner, which obviously is without any merit. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }: The petitioner took admission in Baba Masat Nath Dental College, Rohtak, in B.D.S Course in the year 1999-2000. She claims to have successfully completed her Ist and 2nd years. At that stage, the petitioner came to know that sanction given to the College for running B.D.S. Course stood withdrawn. The College approached the Civil Court and statedly had obtained an order, staying the cancellation of sanction. The claim is that the Civil Court had decided the suit in favour of the College. A vague reference is made to some proceedings initiated before this Court by way of writ petition, which was decided, against which some Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. What happened to that is not being mentioned in the petition and it is obviously, with reason and purpose. It would, however, emerge from the record and would show how hopeless is the cause of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, claims that she took admission in the 3rd year course in August 2006 and applied for being shifted to some other recognized College. When nothing came out of his request, she preferred Civil Writ Petition No.7187 of 2007 with a prayer for shifting her to some other College. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner somehow managed an order shifting her to some other College. The writ petition, therefore, was got dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous. Subsequently, this permission for shifting the petitioner to some other College was cancelled on 11.10.2007. The petitioner once again was before this Court to challenge the said cancellation by filing CWP No.17040 of 2007. This Court had then observed that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }: the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the petitioner also had moved an application for the same relief, which she got dismissed as withdrawn. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed status-quo to be maintained, any order passed could have been construed as interference in the said status-quo order. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit in 2008, praying for interim injunction but her prayer was declined on the ground that writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same cause had been dismissed. The above position should have brought the lis to an end. The petitioner appears to be having a survival instinct and claims to have got an order for the University, directing her transfer to S.G.T. College, Gurgaon. The College did not pay any heed. The University had then asked the Principal to comply with the directions. Even the Ministry had intervened for really undisclosed reasons and had directed Dental Council to grant approval for the petitioner to appear in the B.D.S. Course. The college still stood its ground and declined to grant the permission. The petitioner is again before the Court. This Court had issued notice and later allowed the petitioner to appear in 4th year examination also but provisionally. Perhaps the complete background was never clearly projected in the petition. The process of filing one application after another then followed praying for some interim direction or the other. Prayer for declaring the result of the examination, for which the petitioner could appear under directions of the Court, was declined on 15.12.2009. Petitioner then filed application for shifting the College which was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 4 }: declined as similar prayer had been declined by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Yet another attempt to seek directions for declaring result was declined on 1.4.2010, by observing that the similar prayer earlier made was declined and for concealment of facts. Even this did not deter the petitioner to repeat the request for declaration of result and for change of college. This was pointed out in order dated 3.8.2010. The petition was adjourned sine-die to await the decision of the SLP but still the petitioner filed an application for recall of the earlier order and thus was able to go before a Bench which had earlier dealt with the petition. The prayer, however, was rejected on 22.11.2010 and petition was ordered to be listed as per the roster. This Court had then observed as under:- “The request of the petitioner for declaration of the result or for permitting her to appear in examination was not allowed and case was adjourned to await decision in SLP as this request had earlier been rejected twice. Still the petitioner/counsel had filed an application for modification of the order which was fixed before a judge which had dealt with the case earlier. This appears to be something which can not be appreciated. That application is again rejected on 22.11.2010 by other Bench and the main case was directed to be placed as per the roster. Adjourned to 4.1.2011 to enable the counsel to show as to what has been the outcome of SLP.” The counsel now pleads that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the SLP without having any effect on the students CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 5 }: and thus the prayer of the petitioner now can be considered. In fact, the correct factual position is not properly reflected in the writ petition. In the reply filed by respondent-DCI, it is specifically averred that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by concealing the material facts. It is pointed out that the petitioner and other students had filed an application in Special Leave Petition for clarification of the orders dated 23.7.2004, allowing the students of first and second batch to take supplementary examination. The permission was not granted to the petitioner and other third batch students. A copy of the application is placed with the reply. Since the issue of recognition of the College was pending before Supreme Court, it is urged that the writ petition is not maintainable. Reference is also made to earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.7187 of 2007, claiming same relief. This was got dismissed as withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition. Yet again the petitioner filed another petition (Civil Writ Petition No.17040 of 2007) through her father which was also dismissed on 20.11.2007. Concealing these facts, the present petition is again filed. In Civil Writ Petition No.17040 of 2007, the precise prayer was for transferring the petitioner to respondent No.6-College for completing the course. From the order passed by this Court on 20.11.2007, it is noticed that College of the petitioner was never recognized by the DCI. The directions passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13955 of 2007, directing the DCI for reconsideration CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 6 }: for grant of approval to the College of the petitioner was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court by DCI. As interim measure, students admitted in 1997-98 and 1998-99 were permitted to be registered. The petitioner had moved application for similar relief but the same was withdrawn. It was noticed that the College was lying closed since 2004 and there was no immediate cause of action against DCI. The writ petition was dismissed as similar relief was not granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner had withdrawn the application. Special Leave Petition pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed by DCI. The petitioner is not a party before the Court. The attempt by the petitioner to get an order by moving application remained unsuccessful. So also was the fate of writ petition filed by the petitioner (CWP No.7187 of 2007) and then by her father (CWP No.17040 of 2007). The relief claimed was the same as is now claimed in the present writ petition. The petitioner was able to get an order for appearing in the examination and then was desperate to get an order for declaring the result. It is only when the clear position emerged that the prayer was declined. There is a clear attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead and overreach the Court. Once the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed, it is not proper for her to file petition by misrepresenting the factual position. The petitioner even resorted to change the counsel. The prayer of the petitioner for change of College or for allowing her to complete the studies was rejected earlier. The petitioner still has dared to press the issue CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10799 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 7 }: regardless of the consequences. The counsel, who appeared on being changed, should have seen but he has made one attempt after another to mislead and repeatedly moved applications claiming the same relief, which had earlier been declined. The petitioner does not have any right to continue study or seek change of College and present attempt is nothing but a desperation on her part. It is too late in a day for her to continue her B.D.S study after lapse of over 10 years. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with strong disapproval of the action on the part of the petitioner and the counsel, who represented her at the time of arguments. December 14, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE