Mr. Ajay Sharma & Others vs Indian Technology & Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 337 Del

ORDER

Usha Mehra, J.

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the act of the Indian Institute of Technology (in short IIT). In December, 1997 IIT through advertisement in various newspapers announced a six months course in Design Technology pursuance to which the petitioners applied for the same. Now, they realised that they have been cheated and defrauded because of the mis-representation made by the Director and officials of the IIT Delhi. Hence case be registered against Respondents No.2 to 8.

2. In brief the case of the petitioners as set up is that the petition is that petitioners being students were way-led by the advertisement appearing in the leading newspapers. The said advertisement carried insignia of IIT Delhi and projected that course was sponsored by IIT Delhi. This was apparent from the folder/brochure which carried photographs of not only IIT campus building but also a big insignia of IIT Delhi in its background. That folder mentioned the Advance Design Technology courses to be of IIT Delhi and in strategic alliance with M/s Next Technology, M/s Karta Technologies India Private Limited and Foundation for Innovative Technology Transfer (in short FIIT) as Industrial partners. Acting on this representation of the IIT petitioners were induced to apply of the said course thinking that to be of the IIT Delhi. The IIT at no point of time clarified that it had not sponsored the said course. The petitioners were also made to believe that the feed for this course amounting to Rs. 75,000/- paid to the "Foundation for Technology Transfer (FITT), was in fact meant for IIT Delhi". Petitioners were also informed on enquiry that the course was being conducted by IIT Delhi in strategic alliance with its Industrial partners. It was further informed to them that these Industrial partners were only to assist IIT Delhi in conducting the programmes smoothly and to handle thousands of industries eagerly looking for such professionals. Believing and acting on this information/assurances, petitioners filed up their application forms and paid the entrance test fees for Design School IIT Delhi. Petitioners appeared in the written test as well as interview conducted by IIT Delhi. They were selected on All India basis. Their admissions were confirmed by the IIT Delhi. They were called to pay the fees of the course by way of demand draft to the tune of Rs.75,000/- in lumpsum or in three equal Installments. It is the case of the petitioners that bonafidly believing that the said course was being conducted by IIT Delhi they deposited the requisite fees. After two months they were issued the receipts to be that of IIT Delhi. Subsequently in June 1997 another advertisement was given meant to add more candidates in the first batch of the course so introduced by the IIT Delhi. This was in connivance with the respondents 2 to 8. Respondents 2 to 8 collected lot of money by duping the innocent poor students. The classes of six months course commenced from 1st August, 1997 in the premises of IIT Delhi. Identity cards were also issued to the petitioners showing them to be the students of Design School, IIT Delhi. The course from the beginning fell short of the expectations and this was brought to the notice of the course Co-ordinator, IIT Delhi. The respondents in order to show that it was course conducted by IIT Delhi promised them job placement with Karta Technologies India (Private) Limited. But that promise in fact was never materialised. However, it is alleged that the certificates were sent by, registered post in June, 1998 but those were issued even before the final examination was conducted. The certificates were not carrying the signatures and seal of authorised signatory of the IIT Delhi rather the name of the Industrial partner that is Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FIIT) was affixed on the top of the certificate as a result of which such certificates had o market value. Thus, according to the petitioner they had been cheated by the respondents 2 to 8. Complaint was filed with the police but case was not registered hence this petition.

3. Averments of the petitioners have been refuted by the respondents 2 to 8, interalia on the grounds that since its inception, IIT Delhi had made special efforts to reach out the needs of industries through sponsored and joint research, technology transfer, consultancy and testing. It was with a view to achieve quantum jump in the level of collaboration and interaction with industry and other user organisation on programmes of mutual interest, the IIT decided to set up a Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FITT). In fact FIIT is promoted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and was set up by the IIT Delhi as a registered society. The courses which are taken under the aegis of FIIT are also started on the approval of the IIT, Delhi. It has been denied by the respondents 2 to 8 that any mis-representation was made when the advertisement was issued. Rather it was made clear that the course was organized by FIIT. It was made further clear in the application form itself that the course was organized by the FIIT. However, the premises of the IIT was utilised for this course and even the faculty members services were utilised for training. It was also made clear through the prospectus that the course was organized by FIIT which had been set up by the IIT Delhi for the purposes of interaction and collaboration with industry on programmes and projects. Further the entire course was conducted as per programme and the schedule indicated in the prospectus. As part of their Industrial training and exposure the candidates were taken to the Industrial Design Centre at IIT Bombay, National Institute of Design at Ahmedabad, Matuti Udyog Limited at Gurgaon and also to the Ashirwad Studios at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The scheduled exams, and evaluation were held as per the schedule and the final project viva-exam was held on 2nd March, 1997. According to the respondents 2 to 8 out of 35 participants petitioners one and five did not complete their academic projects nor did they appear before the jury for the final project viva. Thirty one candidates qualified in the grand total. Four candidates including two of the petitioners were advised for completing of their remaining work in a stipulated time. Out of these four, one candidate took they opportunity and completed the course requirements. He was found to be qualified in the course. Qualifying certificates were issued to 32 candidates. The certificate distribution cermony was held on 24th April, 1998 in IDD Centre, IIT Delhi. The candidates who had successfully completed the course/programme were given the qualifying certificates with performances, marked on the reverse of the certificate but those students who did not qualify the course, and did not attempt to improve their performance were issued certificates of participation. Thus, according to the respondents 2 to 8 no mis-representation was made nor the petitioners were cheated.

4. That the State has also filed status report under the signature of the SHO, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He has corroborated the version of the respondents 2 to 8. He has reiterated that though the course was advertised by the IIT, Delhi but it was made clear that the same was organized by FITT. These petitioners as well as other candidates at the time of filling the application form were made aware that course was organized by FIIT and not by IIT Delhi. Moreover, fee was deposited by the petitioners in the name of the FIIT. On enquiry it was found that the allegation made by petitioners were contrary to the record. Since no cognizable offence was made out hence no FIR was registered.

5. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Sharma for the petitioners; Ms. Mukta Gupta for the State and Mr. Maninder Singh for the IIT Delhi. We have also perused the material placed on record & the files of the respondents. Perusal of the advertisement issued by the IIT filed with this petition as Annexure P-9 and P-13 at Pages 86 and 91 show that the course was organized by Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer (FIIT), IIT Delhi Along with Industry Partners, Next Technology, New Delhi and Karta Technologies (India) Private Limited. As per the advertisement the candidates were asked to collect the prospects and application forms for which they were to pay Rs.300/- in favor of Next Technology that is Industry partners of FIIT.

6. We have also gone through the application form which was filled up by the students before appearing in the written test & interview. The same is Annexure P-4 at Pages-69 and 70. Application form carry a note which reads as under:-

NOTE:-

"This course is being organized by Foundation for Innovative Technology Transfer, IIT Delhi in Collaboration with M/s Karta Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and Next Technology, New Delhi as Industrial Partners."

7. The bare reading of this note makes it clear that the students were put to notice that the course was being organized by FIIT, IIT Delhi and not by the IIT as has now been projected by the petitioners. The matter does not end here in fact the petitioners were asked vide letter of the programme Co-ordinator, Mr. S.K. Atreya dated 12th May, 1997 (Annexure P-6 at Page 75) that they were to deposit the course fee in favor of "FITT, IIT Delhi". And the petitioners in fact deposited the fees in the name of FITT.

8. The identity cards were issued by the IIT Delhi in order to enable, the students who were participating in this course to use the library facility. This is so apparent from the bare reading of the identity card. The identity card shows Design School, IDD Centre, Indian Institute of Technology and it is signed by the students, the library, security and the name of the Co-ordinator was given as S.K. Atreya. The ID Card is in consonance with the terms of advertisement given by the IIT, therefore, no support can be derived by the petitioner on the basis of this ID Card. Even the agreement executed by the petitioners with Karta Technologies Private Limited dated 29th December, 1997 reveals that these students were made aware that six months' duration course was offered by Industrial Design Clinic at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, organized under the aegis of Foundation for Innovation and Technology Transfer. Therefore, the fact that programme was organized by FITT was known to the petitioner at the very initial stages. Before the students were made to deposit the course fee it was made known to them that the course was organized by FITT, IIT Delhi. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was ny misrepresentation or any inducement made by respondents 2 to 8 to cheat or to defraud the petitioners or for that matter other students. Bare perusal of the prospectus, annexure R-1/1 shows that course was organized by FITT and the Instrument Design Development Centre, IIT, Delhi. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondents 2 to 8 induced the petitioner in any manner to do something which they did not want to do nor it can be said on the facts of this case that petitioners or other students were falsely allured by misrepresentation to join the course.

9. We are in agreement with the contention of Ms. Mukta Gupta, counsel for the State that in the facts of this case prima facie no cognizable offence is made out for registration of the case. It petitioners have any grievance they can file civil suit. Otherwise also Mr. Maninder Singh, appearing for the IIT, Delhi has made it clear that IIT has no objection in counter signing the certificate through its Programme Coordinator and the Chief Design Engineer, IIT, Delhi Mr. Sudhir Atreya. As a sample one of the certificate counter signed by IIT has also been placed on record. If the petitioners are so desirous and interested they can get their certificate counter signed by the IIT as proposed.

10. With these observations the petition stands disposed.