Nagpur: In a setback to former chairman of Nagpur University’s Mass Communication Board Sunil Mishra, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Friday dismissed his petition for directives to chancellor Ch Vidyasagar Rao to take a decision on his appeal against disaffiliation of Central India Institute of Mass Communication (CIIMC), run by him.
Mishra had also challenged Nagpur University’s decision to prohibit his entry on the varsity premises, particularly the administrative block, by filing an appeal with the chancellor. He had moved the HC for directives to Rao for expeditiously deciding his appeal filed under Section 9(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.

While censuring Mishra, a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Deshpande and Justice Arun Upadhye refused to buy any of his contentions that he was unaware of court’s procedure.

NU counsel Sudhir Puranik pointed out that though the HC had granted time till September 4 to the respondents, including Rao, NU vice-chancellor SP Kane and registrar Neeraj Khaty on July 24, to reply to its notices, the petitioner got the hearing advanced to August 13 while none of the respondents were intimated about advancement it.

After Mishra circulated the case on August 13, HC had flayed NU registrar and chancellor’s secretary BV Gopala Reddy for not responding to its notices and directed the latter to file an affidavit in six weeks with a warning to summon him in case of failure.

“We’re unable to accept petitioner’s statement that due to ignorance, he couldn’t point out to the HC that the matter was advanced. He (Mishra) submits that he had intimated respondents about advancing of this matter. It’s not possible for us to digest this for the reason that the petitioner is appearing before this court in person for so many years. We feel that he is conversant with the procedures, more than lawyers appearing in HC,” the judges tersely stated.

“We put specific question to the petitioner on whether he informed the HC that he got the matter advanced, although notice was made returnable on September 4. He admits to have not informed this court. Under this misconception, we passed the order on August 13 that the registrar and secretary were not responding to our notices. In view of the factual position, we dismiss the writ petition,” the judges ruled.

While directing registry not to implement the August 13 order, the judges noted that there was no occasion for Mishra to get the matter advanced without giving notice to the other side.

Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with . Download The for your device. in English and other languages.