Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

Suman v. State of M. P.

2008-02-05

DIPAK MISRA, R.S.JHA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THE present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India frescoes a flummoxed picture and exposits a scenario which can be stated without fear of any contradiction that there is an adroit endeavour on the foundation of self-convinced remonstrance by the petitioner to accomplish not only a misconceived but also, in a way, implausible result. The pleadings, as we perceive, are nebulous and mercurial from which it is extremely difficult to discern and "come right on the marrow of the case". It has the effect potentiality to create a maze. It is, we are disposed to think, due to preconceived and predetermined propensity and ingenuity of the petitioner which reflects her incurable ambition based on fallacious conception of justice as if justice is sans law. True it is, justice is not divorced from mercy but mercy cannot be the sole and lone governing factor. As it appears the petitioner has persuaded herself by exclusive aspiration and interest and not by reason in the remotest sense. ( 2. ) WE have commenced with the aforesaid prefatory note inasmuch as in a confused state of pleadings one thing alone is clear that the petitioner, a student of LL. B.-II has prayed for various reliefs which are not only manifold or multi-fold but have their own bizzare characteristics. She has prayed for declaring the Ordinance No. 5. 22 (2) of the Dr. Harshing Gour vishwavidyalaya as unconstitutional, to quash the revaluation result in LL. B.-II examination of March-April, 2006 due to fraud played by the respondent University, for issue of direction registering a criminal case against the accused persons and to award maximum marks to the petitioner in the subject in question. ( 3. ) IT is apposite to mention here that the petitioner had appeared in LL. B.-II examination conducted by the respondent university and her result was declared in June, 2006. Being dissatisfied with the marks in the subject of Jurisprudence and interpretation of Statutes she applied for revaluation. The revaluation was done and result thereof was declared and eventually in the subject of Interpretation of Statute she was given 45 marks as against 44 marks allotted to her in the main examination. ( 4. ) THE petitioner was grieved by the award of the marks on revaluation which impelled her to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14649/2006. ( 4. ) THE petitioner was grieved by the award of the marks on revaluation which impelled her to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14649/2006. The matter was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court and he observed that the first examiner of the revaluation allotted 58 marks and the second examiner of revaluation allotted 45 marks to the petitioner and hence, she was allotted 45 marks as per the ordinance No. 5. 22 (2 ). Being of this view the learned single judge did not find any fault in the revaluation and dismissed the writ petition. ( 5. ) THE petitioner preferred writ appeal No. 509/2007 which faced dismissal. As averred in the petition, a Special Leave petition was filed but the same was also dismissed. ( 6. ) AFTER taking such recourse the present petition has been filed seeking reliefs as mentioned hereinabove. ( 7. ) WE have heard Mr. M. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Awasthy,learned Government advocate for the State and Mr. Harvinder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. ( 8. ) TO appreciate the controversy it is seemly to reproduce ordinance 5. 22 (2) which reads as under: "if the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awrded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluer and nearest to each other will be then to represent at the "correct valuation". This average of marks will be awarded to candidate for the revision of his result. Provided that subject to conditions that at least one of the variation from the original marks is more than 10% of the maximum mark in the paper, if two differences in marks allotted by the three examiners are equal, the two marks to the advantages of the candidate shall be taken into account for arriving at the correct valuation. If the average marks are more than 20% of the maximum marks, answer book will be sent to the third examiner with original obtained marks along with marks given by the first and second examiner of revaluation and marks given third examiner will be awarded. " ( 9. If the average marks are more than 20% of the maximum marks, answer book will be sent to the third examiner with original obtained marks along with marks given by the first and second examiner of revaluation and marks given third examiner will be awarded. " ( 9. ) WE would like to mention that the question that falls for consideration is whether this Court should address itself to the constitutional validity of the Ordinance. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that relying on the said ordinance the writ petition, the writ appeal and the SLP were dismissed though the said ordinance is totally invalid and unconstitutional. Learned counsel would submit that the ordinance itself is contradictory and further the marks have been fabricated and forged. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the petitioner could have challenged the constitutional validity of the ordinance on earlier occasion but she had chosen not to do so. It is proponed by them that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the controversy has already been put to rest in the earlier writ petition and, therefore, the issue has become academic. ( 11. ) TO appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar we have carefully persued the order passed in Writ Petition no. 14649/2006 as the said file was called for by us. We have also bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the pleadings. On a scrutiny of the pleadings we notice that a number of allegations have been made with regard to forgery committed by the respondent No. 2. We fail to fathom how the said allegations would aid and assist the petitioner to assail the constitutional validity of the Ordinance. The said aspect possibly could have been highlighted in the first writ petition. But, that was not done. ( 12. ) QUITE apart from the above, the matter had travelled to the apex Court and the petitioner was not granted any relief and revaluation conducted by the University was found to be correct. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Ordinance, at present, cannot confer any benefit to the petitioner inasmuch as the controversy of revaluation as far as the petitioner is concerned has been put to rest. Thus, the issue has become totally academic. ( 13. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Ordinance, at present, cannot confer any benefit to the petitioner inasmuch as the controversy of revaluation as far as the petitioner is concerned has been put to rest. Thus, the issue has become totally academic. ( 13. ) IN this context we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Central Areca Nut and Cocoa Marketting and processing Cooperative Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (1997) 8 SCC 31 wherein it has been held as under: "6. In our view, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are liable to be accepted. The High Court had noticed that the matter had become academic and in fact, observed at the end of the judgment as follows :"mr. Dattu, learned Government Pleader, pointed out that 1977 notification had since been superseded by 1984 notification which extended to the benefit to all and therefore, striking down 1977 notification would be academic, It may appear be so". But the High Court went on to observe that it was nonetheless deciding the issue, so that in future when power is exercised by the State, the State could benefit by what was stated in the Judgment. " Thereafter their Lordships proceeded to state as follows: "7. In our view, the High Court ought not to have gone into the question merely for the purpose of the future and, at any rate, ought to have noticed the highly inequitable consequences of its interference so far as the appellant Society was concerned. . . . . . . . " Again their Lordships in paragraph 8 held as under: "8. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court ought not to have gone into the issue on merits. . . . " ( 14. ) IN State of Bihar Vs. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lall jute Mills, AIR 1960 SC 378 the Apex Court has observed that the courts are and should be reluctant to dwell upon the constitutional validity of the matters of merely academic importance. ( 15. ) AS no relief can be granted to the petitioner from any score, we are indubitable, that the issue is absolutely academic and does not deserve advertence by us. ( 16. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. ( 15. ) AS no relief can be granted to the petitioner from any score, we are indubitable, that the issue is absolutely academic and does not deserve advertence by us. ( 16. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Ordinarily we would have restrained ourselves from imposing costs keeping in view the anxiety of the petitioner, but, an eloquent one, a litigant can afford to be anxious to a permissible extent. Anxiety has its own limits. Personal anxiety should not be permitted to create a concavity in the justice dispensation system, for such litigations irrefragably waste the time of court and also pave the path of abuse of the process of law. Thus, ostracizing and abdicating our restraint we are compelled to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand ).