Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar Verma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. ... on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24953 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Verma And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Higher Education Lko.Andors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Girish Chandra Verma,Raj Deepak Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jogendra Nath Verma,Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The Assistant Registrar is present before the Court along with the relevant records.
Heard Mr. Raj Deepak Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to compel the petitioners /students to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as enhanced fees for LLM-III-Semester for academic year 2019-20 which has already been deposited by the petitioners/students which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioners/students to appear in the LLM-III Semester examination which is going to be held from 18.12.2020 to 23.12 2020 without depositing any additional/enhanced amount as stated by opposite parties.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties to issue admit cards by accepting the examination forms of the petitioners/student so that petitioners/student can participate in the examination."
The contention learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have taken admission in pursuance to a brochure issued by the respondent-University for admission for the academic session 2018-19, which is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. It is argued that in the said brochure/admission notice it was prescribed that the applications were invited for the academic session 2018-19 for various aided/ self finance /vocational /professional / P.G. diploma courses running in University residential campus and colleges affiliated to the said University. In the said brochure the L.L.M. was shown as 'other professional courses'. Along with the said brochure the fee prescribed for all the courses was disclosed, the fee prescribed for the L.L.M. Course which was of four semester duration was Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court prescription of fees with regard to one of the courses known as B.P. Ed. which was a two years course and and where the fees prescribed was Rs.50,000/- for the first year and Rs.30,000/- for the second year. It is claimed that the petitioners were desirous of taking admission applied in terms of the said admission notice and deposited the fees of Rs.50,000/-, however, when the petitioners were to appear for the examination of the third semester, they were asked to deposit a further amount of Rs.50,000/-, which the petitioners resisted on the ground that the entire semesters were mentioned in the brochure and the fee prescribed was for the entire semester. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the demand of fees is bad in law, inasmuch as the fees charged is to be prescribed under the ordinance of the university which has not been framed as yet. He further argues that in any case the admission notice is a notice based upon which the petitioners have taken admission, paid the fess and have altered their position and the respondent-University being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution cannot be permitted to resile from the promises made in the admission notice. He argues that the same is barred by principles of promissory estoppel. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors; 1979 AIR 621. In the light of the said he argues that although the petitioners have taken examination for third and the fourth semester, they want to appear in one of the examination for the third semester which has not been taken and is due to be taken. In the light of the said he argues that the writ petition may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, argues that course offered was a self financed course without there being any aid from the Government. He further argues that in terms of the resolution passed, a decision was taken fixing the fees for the first two semesters at Rs.50,150/- and the rest two semesters at Rs.44,650/-. He further argues that the said proposal was accepted by the Finance Committee and the fees prescribed was Rs.50,000/- for the first year and Rs.48,450/- for the second year. The said proposal of the Finance Committee was accepted by Executive Council and in pursuance to the said, demand was raised against the petitioners. He further argues that the all the other students, except the petitioners have paid the fees as demanded from them and in the light of the said he argues that the petitioners may be permitted to appear and take one paper of the third semester only on their depositing the balance amount of fees. He further argues that being a self finance course, the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner looses significance as the fee can be prescribed.
However, considering the submissions made by parties and without going into the first submission made by the petitioners, the writ petition liable to be allowed on the second argument that by means of the admission notice which is on record as Annexure No.3, the respondents had made a promise in the form of depiction of fees which was Rs.50,000/- for the L.L.M. Course comprising of four semesters and the petitioners based upon the said promise have altered their position and the respondent-University cannot resile from the said promise and call upon the students to pay the fees which was not depicted in the admission notice.
Accordingly, on that ground and in view of the principles of promissory estoppel, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed.
The respondent-University is directed to allow the petitioners to appear in the first paper of third semester, 'law and social transformation in India' and the results of the semesters shall be declared after the petitioners have undertaken the said examination, as and when the exams are held. The respondent-University shall make an arrangement for taking the examination of petitioners as directed above with all expedition, preferably within a period of three months from today.
(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)
Order Date :- 31.8.2022
Ram.
