Court lifts interim stay against Election Commissioner Qureshi from attending college governing body meet Are disputes between the governing members of St Stephens College internal grievances,or do they come under public law? A Division Bench led by Chief Justice A P Shah on Monday wanted to know how the Delhi High Court has writ jurisdiction to pass orders or even admit a purely internal dispute in the governing body of a college society. The query came even as the court lifted an interim stay against Election Commissioner S Y Qureshi from attending the colleges governing body meetings. The order comes in the nick of time for Qureshi,as the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday. The stay order had been passed earlier by Justice Gita Mittal of the High Court on a petition filed by a former student,Ajay Singhla,who alleged that his removal was illegal. Singhla had argued that despite having a tenure till 2011,he was removed to accommodate Qureshi,who was nominated to the governing body by principal Valson Thampu. Singhla had even accused Thampu of running the prestigious Delhi University college management in an autocratic manner following which,a temporary stay against Qureshi was granted. Aggrieved by the single-judge order,Thampu had then moved the court of Chief Justice Shah in appeal. But matters came to a head today when the Division Bench questioned how the dispute had reached the High Court in the first place. How does this come under public law? Please address us on our jurisdiction, the court noted. The term public law means a body of law which governs relations between a State and its citizens. It deals with the structure and operation of the government and covers administrative law,constitutional law and criminal law. Do you consider this (college) society as a State? the court asked,challenging the lawyers to explain why the court should even admit Singhlas allegations. Making it clear that the court is not prima facie disposed to maintain petitions on internal disputes,the Bench told the parties to file a civil suit if they wanted,and not evoke laws meant for repairing disputes which may have a public flavour. Though the Bench referred the case back to Justice Gita Mittal for further hearing,Singhlas lawyers,at that point,preferred to withdraw the litigation from High Court in toto. Todays hearing follows a somewhat similar incident on Friday when another High Court judge said it is time the college authorities settle their own disputes. Justice P K Bhasin had expressed concern about the continued legal battles among administrators of the elite institution. Why do you keep fighting? Why dont all of you sit down and settle down the differences? Bhasin had asked the battery of lawyers appearing variously for the college,Thampu,and the governing body. The High Court is seized with a number of rounds of litigation,engaged in by various members of the college administration,mainly the college governing body,the supreme council and the Bishop of Delhi,Reverend Sunil Kumar Singh,who is the chairman.
