Allahabad High Court
CHHATRAPATI SHAHU JI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITYversusSAKSHAM PAL AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is allowed because the University was denied a chance to be heard, making the Single Judge’s order unsustainable.
Summary
The University had issued an order on 1 May 2026 requiring a student to furnish psychiatric and psychological assessment reports, which the student challenged by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge, after a video‑conference hearing on 28 July 2026, quashed the University’s order without allowing the University to file a counter‑affidavit or present material in its defence. The University appealed, but the appeal was filed 26 days after the judgment, exceeding the prescribed period. The High Court, however, condoned the delay on the basis of an uncontroverted application and affidavit. It held that the University was denied a statutory opportunity to be heard, rendering the Single Judge’s order unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Single Judge’s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for the University to file a counter‑affidavit and for the parties to proceed afresh.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal is barred by the limitation period of 26 days.
- Whether condonation of delay in filing the appeal is permissible.
- Whether the Single Judge erred by not providing the University an opportunity to contest the writ petition.
- Whether the order dated 1 May 2026 requiring psychiatric assessment reports should be upheld.
Subjects
- procedural fairness
- opportunity to be heard
- condonation of delay
- writ petition
- higher education
- judicial review
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 704 of 2026
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Saksham Pal and 9 others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with Rohit
Pandey, Shambhavi Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Pankaj Kumar Ojha,
Pratik Chandra, Bhupendra Pal
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.07.2026 passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 27325 of 2026, whereby the writ
petition filed by the respondent, aggrieved of the order dated 01.05.2026
passed by the University, has been allowed and the order has been
quashed.
2. The appeal is barred by 26 days.
3. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the
appellant. The application is not contested.
4. For the reasons indicated in the application supported by affidavit, the
same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. Counsel for the appellant made submissions that the writ petition came
up before the learned Single Judge on 20.07.2026 when order was passed
requiring the University Authorities to resolve the issue raised in the
petition, failing which, the Registrar was required to appear through video
conferencing (V.C.) at 2:00 p.m. on 28.07.2026.
6. It is submitted that though the order was passed on 20.07.2026, the
same was uploaded on 27.07.2026, as it is reflected from page 213 of the
paper book.
SPLAD No. 704 of 2026
2
7. On 28.07.2026, the Registrar, Head of Department, Proctor of the
University appeared through video conferencing, on which date, learned
Single Judge, after noticing the contents of the plea raised by the
respondent-petitioner, and after interacting with him for some time, came
to the conclusion that the directions contained in the order dated
01.05.2026 requiring the respondent to furnish psychiatric and
psychological assessment reports and consequent restrictions imposed on
the said basis could not be sustained and has quashed the same. Further,
certain expectations from the University administration have been
expressed in the order.
8. It is submitted that the appellant University did not get any opportunity
to counter the submissions made in the petition. Neither any counter
affidavit was sought nor any material could be produced by the appellant
before the Court in support of the order impugned before the learned
Single Judge.
9. Large number of documents have been filed in the present appeal
seeking to support the order impugned dated 01.05.2026 passed by the
University. Submissions have been made that for lack of opportunity, the
order impugned deserves to be set aside and the appellant be granted
opportunity to contest the petition on merits.
10. Counsel for the respondent made submissions that the learned Single
Judge, after thoroughly going through the material available on record
and after interacting with the officers of the University as well as the
student, has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no requirement
to furnish psychiatric and psychological assessment reports and, therefore,
the order impugned does not call for any interference. However, it is not
denied that no opportunity to file the counter affidavit was afforded to the
appellant University, which, it is claimed, was not required.
11. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. It is not in dispute that on 20.07.2026 when the matter came up before
the learned Single Judge, the University was directed to resolve the issue,
failing which the Registrar was required to join the proceedings through
SPLAD No. 704 of 2026
3
V.C., however, the order was uploaded on 27.07.2026. We are of the
opinion that the said uploading of the order on 27.07.2026 apparently had
no implication inasmuch as the counsel was present and the directions to
resolve the issue were clear.
13. Apparently, when the officials of the University appeared through
V.C. and the counsel was also present before the learned Single Judge
along with the respondent-petitioner, the learned Single Judge, as is
evident from the order, mainly noticing the contention raised in the
petition, as the petition only was available before the learned Single Judge
and based on the interaction with the officers as well as the student, has
come to the conclusion, as noticed herein before.
14. Looking to the material sought to be relied on by the appellant in the
present appeal, we find that mere interaction with the respondent-
petitioner and oral interaction with the officers on V.C. was sufficient for
the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion regarding the validity
of the order dated 01.05.2026. An opportunity to contest the petition was
required to be given to the University, may be a short period for the said
purpose, but without providing the opportunity to contest the allegations
made in the petition, passing of the order by learned Single Judge, cannot
be sustained.
15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.07.2026
passed by learned Single Judge is set aside.
16. Writ-C No.27325 of 2026 is restored to its original number.
17. Counter affidavit to the petition be filed by the University by
09.10.2026 and rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the respondent-
petitioner by 14.10.2026 and the writ petition shall come up before the
appropriate Single Bench on 16.10.2026, as fresh.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 30, 2026
RK/SL
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…