"Bench Hunting": Rajasthan High Court Imposes 10 Lakh Cost On Medical Institute For Filing Petition By Concealing About Its Dismissal By Jaipur Bench

Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"Now-a-days, the practice of bench hunting is often noticed, however, it is least expected from the institute providing education for the higher courses to the students to involve in such practice. It is a very sorry state of affairs and the conduct of the petitioner– institution is highly condemnable and contemptuous too. It is not expected from any person approaching the Court to conceal the relevant facts and to make an attempt of mislead the Court."

Essentially, before the Jaipur Bench, the petitioner-institution had sought directions for setting aside certain notices related to admission along with the consequential proceedings caused due to the said notices. Further, direction was sought before the Jaipur Bench to restrain respondents to disaffiliate the petitioner institution in the interest of the students and faculty staff therein. Consequently before the Principal Bench at Jodhpur, in addition to the above prayers, the petitioner- institution sought permission to undertake B.Sc.(N), P.B.Sc., M.Sc. Course for the academic session 2021-22 and to include its name in all the rounds of counselling.

The court noted that the relief prayed for before the Jaipur Bench are almost identical as prayed for in the present writ petition, except one or two prayers, which are almost insignificant.

Further, the court was informed by the respondents that a petition with similar prayers had been preferred on behalf of the students of the petitioner– institution, whereby the Jaipur Bench had issued notices on 06.05.2022 and the next date fixed in the matter was 26.05.2022. It was further submitted that in the above referred writ petition, the petitioner – institution has also been made party.

The court observed that the reasons, which forced the petitioner–institution to file this writ petition, though the earlier writ petition filed by it before the Jaipur Bench is pending, are not known to it, as the same have not been disclosed by the petitioner–institution. The court added that this concludes that the petitioner–institution was apprehensive that he may not get a favourable order from Jaipur Bench.

Notably, during the course of hearing, Adv. Shreyansh Mardia appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution, categorically made a statement that he was not aware of the fact that the petitioner has already filed writ petition before Jaipur Bench and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn. He further submitted that the petitioner had not informed him about the said fact, otherwise, there was no reason for him not to mention the above fact in this writ petition.

In this regard, the court remarked that the petitioner–institution has not even bothered to apprise the Advocate engaged by it regarding the relevant facts, which resulted into awkward position of the advocate concerned before the court.

It was ordered by the court that the cost of Rs. 10 Lacs shall be deposited by the petitioner– institution with the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within a period of one month. The court added that if the said cost is not deposited by the petitioner– institution within the stipulated time, then the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur shall inform the court about the same.

The respondents' counsel made a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that the conduct of the petitioner-institution is objectionable and condemnable as the petitioner-institution has filed successive writ petitions without disclosing the fact that earlier, the writ petition filed by it seeking similar reliefs has already been dismissed though as withdrawn.

Adv. Shreyansh Mardia appeared for the petitioner while Sr Adv. Virendra Lodha assisted by Adv. Raunak Singhvi, Adv. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Yashpal Khileree and Adv. Mahendra Bishnoi appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Dhanwantri Institute Of Medical Science v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 178