IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 50 of 2008 Sarfaraj Ahmad & Others .……… Appellants. Versus The Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences Swami Vidyapeeth, Swami Ram Nagar, P.O. Doiwala, Dehradun and others ……… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Assistant Solicitor General (Union of India) for respondent No. 3. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) In this Special Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 20th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Relief Application No. 1231 of 2008 in WPMS No. 485 of 2008 and Stay Application dated 11th February, 2008 in WPMS No. 236 of 2008, the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge not appreciating the fact that the notification issued u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 by the Central Government on 6th June, 2007 whereby respondent No.1 Institution was granted the status of deemed University would not come into operation unless respondent No.1 Institution stood de-affiliated from respondent No.4 University. 2. We have heard detailed arguments advanced by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 3. We have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the notification dated 6th June, 2007 (Supra). The sum and substance of Mr. Sharma’s contention is that since the notification dated 6th June, 2007 was dependent upon the de-affiliation of respondent No.1 Institution from respondent No.4 University and since the de- affiliation has not legally and legitimately been effected, respondent No.1 Institution continues to be an affiliate of respondent No.4 University and as long as that situation continues, respondent No. 1 cannot be treated to be a deemed to the University u/s 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Even though the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has not expressed any definite opinion about the aforesaid issue but he nonetheless declined to grant any interim relief to the appellants/writ petitioners. Since the writ petition is pending disposal before the learned Single Bench, it shall not be proper for us in this appeal to express any final opinion on the subject but we do wish to observe that prima-facie it does appear to us that de-affiliation as sought by respondent No.1 Institution on its own volition and of its own accord, cannot be equated with a de-affiliation resorted to by the University by way of punishment or as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings. A simple de-affiliation sought by the Institution itself perhaps may not require any complicated or intense process and the Vice Chancellor perhaps by himself might be competent to communicate the de-affiliation to the institution concerned. 4. We are not inclined to interfere. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 22.04.2008 22.04.2008 LSR/Shiv