THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1260 of 2008 13.11.2009 Between: Osmania University, represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad … Petitioner AND Dr.O.Srinivas Reddy, Principal, Jagruti Degree & P.G. College, Padmashali Bhavan, Raj Mohalla, Narayanguda, Hyderabad – 500 029. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1260 of 2006 ORDER: Osmania University, Hyderabad, is first respondent in W.P.No.628 of 2006 filed by Jagruti Degree & P.G. College, Hyderabad. The writ petition was filed challenging orders of the University dated 07.1.2006 disaffiliating two courses, namely, B.Sc., (Bio-Technology etc.,) and B.Sc., (Micro-biology etc.,) allegedly for the reason that college admitted students in excess of permitted number. This Court while admitting the writ petition suspended the impugned order dated on 10.1.2006. The University then moved application being WVMP No.119 of 2006 for vacating the same. On considering the rival positions, this Court on 23.2.2006 disposed of the two miscellaneous applications being WPMP No.757 of 2006 and WVMP No.119 of 2006, by passing the following order. The petitioner is a recognized Degree College affiliated to the respondent. The Standing Committee of Academic Senate in its meeting held on 28.12.2004 and 31.05.2005 resolved to disaffiliate two courses, namely B.Sc., (Bio-Tech, Bio-Chem, Chem.,) and B.Sc., (Bio-Tech, Micro Biology, Chemistry) in view of the alleged excess admission made by the college year 2005- 2006. The same was assailed before this Court allowed the writ petition being W.P.No.23485 of 2005 giving liberty to the respondent to place the matter before Executive Council on 14.12.2005 and thereafter the Registrar of the University and Secretary of the Executive Council issued the impugned order on 07.1.2006, which is to the same effect as that of earlier proceedings dated 6.6.2005. It has been specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Executive Council only confirmed the earlier decision and not independent to take any decision with reference to the facts placed before it. A perusal of the impugned order would prima facie support the contention and in such background when the admissions are already over, if the disaffiliation is allowed to continue, there will be any amount of confusion and hardship to the students and therefore this is a fit case where this court should suspend the impugned order. It is, however, brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that pursuant to interim orders of this Court all the students appeared before the Director, Academic Audit Cell, and those students were allotted other affiliated colleges. In view of the same, there shall be status quo as on today. During the academic year 2006-2007, the college addressed a letter dated 18.10.2006, inter alia, stating that for the new academic year, students were admitted only to B.Sc., Degree courses. The University therefore contends that in the face of the orders of this Court dated 23.2.2006, admission of students amounts to contempt. Respondent filed counter denying allegations of contempt. It is brought out that University filed writ appeal being W.A.No.379 of 2006 against the orders dated 23.2.2006, which was disposed of as infructuous and that by communication dated 18.4.2006, two courses were included in the affiliated category, and therefore, admission of students for the academic year 2006-2007 is not contempt. Learned Counsel for the University does not seriously dispute the communication of the Registrar bearing No.711/H/2005-06/Acad.IV-3, dated 18.4.2006. He however submits that when there was an order of status quo passed by this Court, respondent ought to have approached this Court and obtain necessary clarification. Without obtaining such clarification, respondent admitted students during academic year 2006- 2007 flouting the orders of this Court. These contentions are refuted by learned Counsel for respondent college. A perusal of the communication dated 18.4.2006 would show that even according to University, Jagruti Degree & P.G. College, Narayanguda, is offering as many as twenty courses including B.Sc., (Bio-Technology etc.,) and B.Sc., (Micro-biology etc.,). These two courses are found mentioned at serial Nos.14 and 16. Wherever the affiliation was temporary, it was specifically mentioned that affiliation courses was temporary. Insofar as B.Com., (CA) and B.Sc., (MB.BC.Ch.) courses (mentioned at serial Nos.17 and 18) are concerned, it is specifically mentioned that these courses have temporary affiliation for academic year 2005-2006. When the University did not mention anything of that nature insofar as two courses mentioned at serial Nos.14 and 16) are concerned, there is nothing wrong for the college to assume that they have affiliation notwithstanding orders of the Court dated 23.2.2006. It is very surprising to note that even though this Court passed orders on 23.2.2006 directing college to maintain status quo, within a period of two months thereafter, University itself issued orders on 18.4.2006 granting affiliation to the two courses. It is no doubt true that there is a lapse on the part of the College in not seeking clarification from the Court. The lapse of the party does not amount to contempt and the benefit of doubt can be granted to such party. In view of the above, contempt case fails and is accordingly dismissed. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 13, 2009 YS