Supreme Court of India
DR. NARINDER SINGH POONIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 9 December 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 705 · 1996 INSC 1453
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 705, margin F
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 0ne of the conditions for completion of project, i.e., condition No. XIII which reads as under :
pp. 705–706, margin F
"The Dept. of Science and Technology reserves the right to terminate the grant at any stage if it is convinced that the grant has not been properly utilised or appropriate progress is not being
p. 706, margin A
made."
p. 706, margin A
: 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 :
p. 706, margin B
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. Paonia PI, the appellant herein was still under suspension and Dr. Bajpai Co-PI had refused to undertake the fmancial and management responsibility of the Project. Under those circumstances and as per our 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
p. 706, margin D
return unspent balance to DST if any and final Technical Report."
p. 706, margin E
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.
p. 706, margin E
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.
p. 706, margin G