Punjab-Haryana High Court
L.K.Talwar And Another vs Lovely Professional University on 9 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 1133 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 9.5.2012
L.K.Talwar and another
...Petitioner
Versus
Lovely Professional University
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Pandher, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.RS Bajaj, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The claim in this petition is for refund of tuition and hostel fee deposited by petitioner no.2 on getting admission in the M.B.A. (I.T.) course for the Academic Session 2009-2011 at the respondent- University. The refund is claimed with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The claim is based on the ground that the 2nd petitioner discontinued her study in the University in September, 2009 due to CWP No. 1133 of 2011 2 ill health and later chose a career offered through distance education of some other University. The present petition has been filed invoking writ jurisdiction with a prayer that a Mandamus be issued to the respondent-University to refund the tuition as well as hostel fees. It is stated that out of total amount deposited, only Rs.16,000/- has been refunded for unused bus service charges. The claim is based, inter alia, on the strength of a decision (Annexure P-6) rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.13308 of 2009 (Sh.Atam Parkash Khatter Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana and others decided on 21.7.2010) wherein similar direction was issued.
On notice of motion having been issued, the respondent- University has appeared and filed written statement. It is stated that petitioner no.2 had sought admission in M.B.A. (I.T.) course. She had deposited a sum of Rs.49500/- as tuition fee for the first semester. She had also deposited Rs.21000/- towards transportation facility, but since she decided not to avail the facility, she applied for refund which was allowed after permissible deduction. The said petitioner also applied for hostel facilities and deposited a further amount of Rs.79,000/-. She, however, attended classes upto 23.9.2009. She vacated the hostel on 24.9.2009 and left the campus. She moved an application for refund of tuition fee on 25.8.2010 i.e. after a year of the admission. It is pleaded in the written statement that the admission process started in July, 2009 and after the admission was made, the Academic Session commenced on 20.8.2009. The cut off date for admission was 16.9.2009 when the last student in the MBA CWP No. 1133 of 2011 3 (IT) was admitted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent-University submits that the matter of refund of fee collected from the students had engaged the attention of the University Grants Commission (UGC) which has issued public notice dated 23.4.2007. Public notice is attached as Annexure R-1. He cites paragraph 3 of the UGC letter in support of its case that the University is not liable to return the fee on the ground that the University was unable to fill the seat vacated by the 2nd petitioner and that seat is lost for ever to the University with the resultant financial loss to the unaided self-financing private educational institution. In terms of the UGC letter dated 23.4.2007, the case for refund would be justified if the seat consumed and then vacated is filled by another candidate by or before the cut off date, only then refund may become a matter of right. In the present case, the position is different. There is a clear recital in the written statement that the seat which fell vacant on account of petitioner leaving the course remained "unfilled by any other candidate throughout the academic session and afterwards". No replication has been filed by the petitioners to rebut this statement of fact. The truth of the statement is, therefore, not open to question. I have no earthly reason to disbelieve it. The respondent-University is bound by letters, guidelines, policy circulars issued by the University Grants Commission. In the face of a specific rule, Mr. Bajaj submits that the decision rendered in Atam Parkash Khatter, supra, would not CWP No. 1133 of 2011 4 apply as no rule to the contrary was dealt with and decided in that case. In fact there was no rule of refund relied upon in that case and the matter was decided on first principles. Closer home, Mr. Bajaj relies on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.9711 of 2010 (Bhagwan Mahavir Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sonepat through its Vice Principal vs. The Haryana State Counselling Society & Ors decided on 6.1.2012) wherein a provision akin to the UGC letter was dealt with being the rules of refund of fees of the AICTE. This Court, speaking through Augustine George Masih,J. observed as follows:-
"....As per the stand of the petitioner-College, the seats vacated by respondents no.3 and 6 are still lying vacant, which fact has not been disputed by the official respondents as well as the private respondents. Accordingly, the stand of the petitioner-College of not refunding the admission fee deposited by respondents no.3 to 6 being in consonance with the AICTE norms cannot be faulted with. This norm, as has been laid down by the AICTE has a retionale behind it i.e. the colleges especially the unaided colleges survive on the fee charged by them from the students. They do not depend upon the aid from any source and for their survival they are primarily dependent on the fee collected from the candidates/students..."
In this view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to give any direction as prayed for, either in law or on facts or on moral grounds, pious responsibility or sacrosanct duty. This petition, being without merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 9.5.2012 MFK CWP No. 1133 of 2011 5