HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 704 of 2026 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. Versus 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 Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University .....Appellant(s) Saksham Pal and 9 others .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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. September 30, 2026 RK/SL SPLAD No. 704 of 2026 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad