Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering ... vs Srishti Agarwal And 2 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 7490 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Chief Justice's Court
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1270 of 2013
 
Appellant :- Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College
 
Respondent :- Srishti Agarwal And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Upadhyaya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anil Kumar Bajpai, Neeraj Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J.

This special appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 7 October 2013. By the order which has been impugned in these proceedings, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant which is a College to which the first respondent was admitted for the BTech degree course, to refund tuition fees of Rs. 2,35,000/- received against the NRI quota within a period of one month failing which, interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been directed to be paid.

2. The dispute in the present case relates to an admission for the first year of the BTech degree course. An entrance examination for various technical courses was conducted by the third respondent, Gautam Budh Technical University, Lucknow. The first respondent applied for admission under the five percent quota reserved for NRI students. The first respondent was allotted a seat in the appellant-College in Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering. The first respondent was informed of the allotment of the seat by the Registrar of the University. The first respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- on 9 July 2010 and was granted admission. By a Government Order dated 6 September 2010, fees for the NRI quota were increased from US $ 5000 to US $ 7000. Following the enhancement in fees from US $ 5000 to US $ 7000, the father of the first respondent addressed a communication to the Principal of the College on 18 September 2010 seeking a cancellation of the admission of the first respondent and the return of the original documents in order to enable the first respondent to pursue admission in another college on the ground that he was unable to afford the increased fees. Since the tuition fees of Rs. 2,35,000/- were not refunded, the first respondent, after addressing various representations, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for the refund of the counselling fees, mess fees and tuition fees. The petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the State Government issued a Government Order on 16 April 2006 clarifying that once a candidate has been admitted for a course after completion of necessary formalities, the tuition fees would not be refunded. In the present case, it was stated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition that the first respondent took admission in the IMS Engineering College, Ghaziabad in Computer Science and Engineering for 2010-11 and when she approached the College for the return of her documents, she specifically stated in a letter to the Principal that though she had applied for the reimbursement of fees she would abide by the decision of the State in regard to the refund of the fees. Moreover, it has been submitted that the information brochure of the College specifically provided that the fees were liable to be increased by the State Government from time to time and by the Government Order in question, the fee which was fixed in 2003 has been revised. As a result of the withdrawal of the candidature of the first respondent, it has been submitted that one seat reserved for the NRI quota has fallen vacant which would remain unfilled. Finally, it has been submitted that in a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court at the Lucknow Bench in Km. Nikita Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6328 (MS) of 2010) rendered on 14 December 2010, it has been held that it would not be open to the students to resile from the payment of the enhanced fee.

4. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent that the information brochure of the Technical University stipulated that the latest orders issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh up to the date of counselling shall be applicable for admission under the NRI quota. Moreover, in the case of private institutions and government aided institutions running self finance courses, a distinction was made by stating that the fees would be in accordance with the latest orders and notifications issued by the State Government or the Fee Fixation Committee. In the present case, it was submitted that the student was unable to bear the enhanced fees and in a welfare State, it would be unfair on the part of the College to decline the refund of the fees.

5. The rival submissions fall for consideration.

6. The Technical University conducted a common entrance test for the purposes of admissions to the technical courses in the State. As regards the NRI quota, Clause 3.4 of the information brochure provides for eligibility for admission to NRI students in the first year. In that regard, sub-clause (viii) of Clause 3.4 specifies that the latest orders issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh up to the date of counselling shall be applicable for admission in the NRI quota. This clause is part of the eligibility for admission. As regards the tuition fees, Clause 18 specifies the fees payable in respect of government and government aided colleges, whereas in the case of private institutions or government aided institutions running self finance courses, the latest notifications and orders of the State Government or the Fee Fixation Committee would be applicable. When the student in the present case took admission to the appellant, she was placed on notice of the information brochure for 2010-11 of the College. The information brochure specifically stated that the students would be required to deposit the increased fees and user charges subject to revision by the University/College/Government from time to time. Moreover, it was stated that if after depositing the fees for the first term a student withdraws his/her candidature, the refund of the fees would be made in accordance with the rules of the College.

7. Now, an important aspect of the matter which must be borne in mind is that the State Government has issued a Government Order on 15 April 2006 specifically clarifying that once a student takes admission to a course, a refund of the tuition fee would not be granted. This stipulation has a valid rationale since otherwise, a student after the allotment of seat would seek an alternate admission resulting in a vacancy in the College to which the student was admitted for the course duration.

8. In the present case, the first respondent has not contested the increase in fees. The first respondent sought to withdraw her admission which was granted and sought to take admission to an alternate institution. The Government Order dated 15 April 2006 states that once a student has taken admission after completing all requisite formalities, a refund of fees would not be granted thereafter. In the present case, consequently, the first respondent having chosen to leave the College was not entitled to a refund of the fees paid. The statement which has been made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the first respondent took admission at the IMS Engineering College in Ghaziabad in Computer Science and Engineering has not been controverted. As a matter of fact, the first respondent while seeking a return of the original documents informed the College of having applied for reimbursement of fees and that she would abide by the decision of the State in regard to the refund of the fees. The College has also stated in its counter affidavit that the withdrawal of the candidature by the first respondent would result in one seat which has been reserved for the NRI students having fallen vacant which would remain unfilled. It is precisely this consequence which is sought to be discouraged by the Government Order dated 15 April 2006 which prohibited a refund of the fees once an admission has been granted.

9. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the first respondent took admission on the basis of the information given to the student by the University prior to counselling that the tuition fees per year would be US $ 5000 and that the Government Order applicable on the date of counselling would govern the payment of fees. Clause 3.4 of the information brochure of the Technical University defines conditions for eligibility for admission in the NRI quota in the first year and in that context states that the latest orders issued by the State Government up to the date of counselling would be applicable for admission in the NRI quota. In regard to the payment of fees, the student was put on notice in the brochure of the College that the fees as increased from time to time would be payable and that if the students were to withdraw after depositing the fees, refund would be only in accordance with the rules.

10. In this view of the matter, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge directing the refund of the tuition fees and in regard to the payment of interest if the fees are not refunded, is unsustainable and would have to be set aside. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7 October 2013.

11. In consequence the petition filed by the first respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 17.12.2013

AHA

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)

(Sanjay Misra, J.)

Chief Justice's Court

C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 364493 of 2013

In re:

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1270 of 2013

Appellant :- Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College

Respondent :- Srishti Agarwal And 2 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Upadhyaya

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anil Kumar Bajpai, Neeraj Tiwari

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the special appeal.

Since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 17.12.2013

AHA

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)

(Sanjay Misra, J.)