As it appears, the High Court has taken exception to the fact that the application was moved when the second Judge was allotted the roaster to deal with the application under section 438 Cr.P.C. To appreciate the analysis made by the High Court we have bestowed our anxious consideration and perused the order impugned. As far as the distinction drawn by the High Court passed in a perverse manner excluding the relevant matters and considering the extraneous matters which deserves to be lancinated in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to nullify the same and the other, which is fundamentally and absolutely situation based for cancelling the order of bail because of violation of the terms and conditions of the order granting bail and other supervising circumstances. However, the said situation or circumstance does not arise in the case at hand. In that context, this Court held that long standing convention and judicial discipline requires bail application to be placed before the learned Judge who had passed earlier orders. On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned Judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety. Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. These appeals have been preferred against the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The Appellants in Special Leave Petition of 2012 are the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh. The Appellant has filed the Special Leave Petition with the permission of this Court, who was not a party, either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Leave to file Special Leave Petition was granted in considering the grievances expressed by the said Appellant contending that in the event of the impugned orders of the Division Bench being implemented, her chance for getting admission to the course of M.B.B.S. for the academic year 2014-15 under the Non-Resident India category would be impugned. The present impugned orders of the Division Bench came to be passed. This appeal was made at the instance of the contesting Respondent in both the Civil Appeals who was really aggrieved of a clause in the prospectus issued by the Appellants, which according to her was not valid. According to the contesting Respondent, she being a Canadian Citizen is an N.R.I., that, therefore, she was entitled to seek admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the NRI category quota but yet the definition of N.R. I. as specified in the prospectus issued by the Chandigarh Administration and the Government Medical College, Chandigarh for the academic year 2012-13 would denude her of such status and, therefore, it was liable to be struck down. The contesting Respondent claimed that her grand-father retired as an Under Secretary in the year 1994, that when he was in the services of the State of Chandigarh he resided in a Government house from 1964 to 1983 and shifted to another Government accommodation provided by the Chandigarh Administration from 1983 to 1993, that third set of Government accommodation was provided by the Government to the father of the contesting Respondent which was occupied till December, 2003 and that thereafter, her father started living in the house of her grandfather in Mohali. The contesting Respondent claimed that she passed as a regular student from Mohali, that the prescription contained in paragraph 2 of the prospectus providing for eligibility and merit for N.R. I. seats for M.B.B.S. course stipulating that the grandparents or parents of the candidates should be resident of Chandigarh for a minimum period of 5 years at any time since the origin of Chandigarh and should have immovable property in her name in Chandigarh for the last at least 5 years and a certificate to that effect issued by D.C.- cum-Estate Officer or Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. It was on that footing that a challenge came to be made by the contesting Respondent in the High Court in C.W.P. No. 1423 of 2011. The learned Single judge by order held that the impugned clause was totally impracticable, illegal, illogical and declared as such. However, the learned Single Judge went further on the question as to whether the contesting Respondent can be granted admission. (800 words)
