w:y :' •h HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR On/ISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. WA No, 90 QF 2008 APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Lalit Kishor Thwari, aged about 43 years, S/o Shri Sudama Prasad Twari, R/o Tnvaripara, Kharaud, Tqhsil-Pamgarh, District-Janj'gir- Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Higher Education D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) T.D. Sharma, aged about 71 years, S/o Late Shri Ramswarup Sharma, Vice Chancellor, PT. Sundar Lal Sharma Open University, Btlaspur, R/o Jashpur House Opposite Income Tax Bhawan, Bhartiya Nagar Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRFT APPEALUNDER SECTION 2 (1»OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH1 ACt. 2006 ^ Present: Shri HV Sharma, leamed counsel forthe appellant. Shri Prashant Mishra, leamed Advocate General with Shri Sumesh Bajaj, leamed Govemment Advocate for the State / respondent No.1. Shri Manindra Shrivastava, leamed Senlor Advocate with Shri Akhilesh Dalpati, learned counsel for respondent No.2. JUDGMENT (02nd Mareh, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel forthe parties are heard. t.Mt^ siaS ^3 2) Appellant Lalit Kishor Tiwari has Tiled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 03.04.2)08. 3) The appellant had filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "Reliefs: 10.1 That, the Hon'bte;Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of'quo-warranto direeting the respondents to vac^e the office Vice Chancellor Pt. Sundar Lal Sharma Open University Bilaspur, quashing the appointment order Annexure P1. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit, in the interest ofjustice." 4) The writ petitioner in the writ petitton was questioning the continuance of respondent No.2 TD Sharma as Vice-Chancellor, Pandit Sunder Lal Sharma Open University, Bilaspur (for short, the University') on the ground that he has completed 70 years of age on 01.04.^)07 and his continuance after 01.04.2007 on the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University is iltegal In view of sub-Section 10 of Section 9 of Pandit Sunder Lal Sharma (Open) Unh/ersity Chhattisgarh Adhiniyam Act, 2004. 5) Learned Single Judge flnding that the petitioner, without giving reasonable time to respondent No.1 to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P/5) had filed the writ petition in hot haste, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. 6) During the pendency of the writ appeal, Chancellor of the Univereity was directed vide order dated 19.09.2008 to consider and decide the appellant's representation dated 20.02.2008. 7) In compliance of the above order, Chancellor of the University has considered and rejected the appetlant's representation vide order dated 11.11 .2008. 8) As during the pendency of the writ appeal the appellant's representation has been considered and rejected by the Chancellor of the University and the writ petition was not considered and decided on merits, we'deem it proper to remit the writ petition for hearing on merits. 9) The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for hearing before an appropriate Single Bench in the week commencing 23rd March, 2009. 10) With the above direction, the writ appeal stands Sd/- chief Justice /: Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge pa'lma