*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1470/2008
PRAMOD JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yashodhar Jain, Father of the
petitioners.
versus
BRAINWARE COMPUTER ACADEMY & ORS... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra &
Mr. M.K. Begg, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition (amended) was originally filed by Shri Pramod and Shri Gulshan, both sons of Shri Yashodhar Jain, claiming that their father had consulted with the respondent no.2 (described in the memo of parties as Nobel Institution of Professional Studies Franchise of respondent no.1) regarding the IT courses i.e. computer courses of Multimedia and Software W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 1 of 7 Engineering for the petitioner no.1 Shri Pramod in the month of March, 2006 and paid up admission fees in advance and education fee, on the basis of the representations contained in the brochures, prospectus and in the personal meetings; that the respondent no.1 (described in the memo of parties as affiliated by Jadavpur University [West Bengal]) and respondent no.2 however failed to arrange faculty of Software Engineering and therefore permitted the petitioner no.1 Shri Pramod to shift to Multimedia Animation (2D Animation); that after one year, the father of the petitioners was told that the petitioner no.1 had passed the 2D Animation course and was required to join the extended courses for 3D Animation and the result would be declared of both the courses together and the petitioner no.1 will be awarded diploma from Jadavpur University; that however subsequently the petitioner no.1 realized that the study of Multimedia 3D Animation course was impossible without deep study of Multimedia 2D Animation which had not been taught to him; that subsequently the petitioner no.2 Shri Gulshan was also admitted for courses of Hardware and Networking and fee demanded therefor also paid.
2. The petitioners claim that the respondents no.1&2 did not teach W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 2 of 7 what they had promised to and had represented, leading the petitioners to believe that the only attempt of the respondents no.1&2 was to fleece money from the petitioners. Alleging such illegalities on the part of the respondents no.1&2, the reliefs of, directing the respondents no.1&2 as well as the respondent no.3 Jadavpur University, Kolkatta to provide appropriate educational atmosphere as represented in the brochure, to disclose the relationship of the institute with the respondent no.4 (Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, Union of India), respondent no.5 (Secretary, Ministry of Education & Human Resources), respondent no.6 (Swiso (India) Pvt. Ltd.) & respondent no.7 DOEACC are claimed.
3. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.1 & respondent no. 4 & 7 DOEACC and to which rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners.
4. CM No.4004/2010 has been filed for substitution of the father Shri Yashodhar Jain and mother Smt. Madhudevi Jain as legal heirs of the petitioner no.1 who died on 17th September, 2009. The respondent no.1 has filed a reply opposing the said application contending that the same is W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 3 of 7 highly belated.
5. Mr. Yashodhar Jain appears in person. He states that written arguments have been filed on the main petition and he has nothing further to add. The written arguments have been perused.
6. None appears for the respondent no.7 DOEACC. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has been heard in opposition to the application for substitution as well as on the writ petition.
7. Though no application for condonation of delay in seeking substitution is filed but Mr. Yashodhar Jain appearing in person has explained the reasons for which the application for substitution could not be filed within the prescribed time. I am satisfied with the said reasons. The delay in seeking substitution is condoned and the substitution is allowed. The parents of the petitioner no.1 Shri Pramod Jain are accordingly substituted in his place.
8. The grievance of the petitioners is of the respondents no.1&2 having misled and cheated the petitioners; the courses offered by the respondent no.1 turning out to be not what was promised, thereby causing not only monetary loss to the petitioners but also affecting the future prospects of W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 4 of 7 the petitioners.
9. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that the respondent no.1 offers a number of courses and of which some are certified by the respondent no.7 DOEACC and one is under affiliation from the respondent no.3 Jadavpur University; however the petitioners had not joined the said courses and had joined the courses run/operated by the respondent no.1 itself and without any affiliation or recognition certification from any authority whatsoever. On enquiry, it is further stated that there is no bar to running the said courses and no law requiring the said courses to be recognized by anybody. It is denied that any misrepresentation has been practiced or that the petitioners have been cheated.
10. The respondent no.1 however has not filed the admission forms of the petitioners and which would have disclosed as to in which course the petitioners were admitted to. The counsel for the respondent no.1has however contended that the writ petition against the respondent no.1 does not lie and is misconceived. It is further contended that the claims as of misrepresentation and cheating cannot be even otherwise adjudicated without evidence and in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on DLF W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 5 of 7 Housing Construction (P). Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation AIR 1976 SC 386.
11. Though my sympathies are with the petitioners who have undoubtedly suffered, but the remedy adopted by them is undoubtedly misconceived, perhaps for the reason of their having not availed of any legal help at any stage. No writ lies for redressal of the claims as made by the petitioners against the respondent no.1. No case for issuance of writ against the Jadavpur University or against the Ministries or the DOEACC is also made out. The petition has to thus necessarily fail.
12. I find from the record that the petitioners have also filed a consumer complaint regarding the same transaction. It is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not affect the adjudication of the said consumer complaint, the dismissal being on technical grounds.
13. Since the writ petition was entertained by this Court and has remained pending in this Court and a perusal of the order sheet shows that the petitioners were bona fide pursuing the same before this Court, it is also deemed expedient to direct that subject to the petitioners preferring alternative remedies on or before 31st December, 2011 the same shall be W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 6 of 7 entertained and dealt with on merits and without any objection as to limitation.
14. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 15 , 2011 pp.
(corrected and released on 14.10.2011) W.P.(C)1470/2008 Page 7 of 7