LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

NARINDER SINGH POONIA vs U O I on 9 December, 1996

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-016862-016862 - 1996Official PDFBench Katikithala Ramaswamy, Girish Thakorlal NanavatiAdvocates NIRAJ SHARMA
PETITIONER:
DR. NARINDER SINGH POONIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, made on October 25, 1995 in W.P. No. 1349/95. In this case, we are not concerned with the controversy between the appellant and the University as to why the latter kept the former under suspension etc. We are concerned with the legality of the termination of the project entitled "Chemical, Physico-Chemical Structural and theoretical investigations of alkali and alkaline earth cation systems-Chemistry of use to biological and geological processes" on which the appellant was conducting research. The Government of India in their order had put one of the conditions for completion of project, i.e., condition No.XIII which reads as under:

"The Dept. of Science and

Technology reserves the right to

terminate the grant the grant has

not been properly utilised or

appropriate progress is not being

made."

It would appear that there was some dispute between the appellant and the University-Devi Ahilya University, Indore. In this behalf, we are not concerned therewith, though the appellant sought to place before us that he was not at fault and on the other hand, the University was at fault in preventing him to complete the project. Notice was issued by this Court to the Union of India. Dr. R.C. Srivastava, Director in the Ministry of Science and Technology has filed an affidavit in which he has stated in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit thus:

"On 16.9.94, the Registrar has sent

the information through courier

service the current status of the

project and facts at that time.

Prof. Poonia PI, the appellant

herein was still under suspension

and Dr. Bajpai Co-PI had refused to

undertake the financial and

Management responsibility of the

Project. Under those circumstances

and as per out DST Norms/Guidelines

the Project was terminated by the

Department on 22.9.94 at that stage

and requested University to submit

and settle the final expenditure on

the project and to return unspent

balance to DST if any and final

Technical Report."

In view of this report, we think that it being a disputed question, we cannot decide the matter in the appeal. Under these circumstances, liberty is given to the appellant to approach the Union of India and apprise them that he did the research in the project as per the guidelines and made necessary progress; and if it is not so, to give the reasons therefor. If the Government is satisfied, appropriate time may be given to the appellant for completing the project. It would be for the Government of India to take the decision in that behalf.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.