Ankur Kimtani And Ors vs Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4876 Del

82.
$~
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 4755/2012

%                                              Judgment dated 21.08.2012

         ANKUR KIMTANI AND ORS                  ..... Petitioners
                     Through : Mr.B.R. Sharma, Adv.

                      versus

    GURU GOVIND SINGH IND
    UNIVERSITY AND ANR                       ..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Mukul Talwar, Adv. along with Mr.Vijender Singh, S.O. (F&B), GGSIPU.

Mr.Anoop Bagai, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sharad Duggal, Adv. for respondent no.2.

Mr.Amit Chakradani, Director of respondent no.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent no.1 to declare the result of the petitioners and also the result of other similarly placed students of respondent no.2 institute, in BBA (CAM) and BBA (GENERAL) courses, for the examination held in May, 2012, conducted by respondent no.1 University.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. As per the petition, petitioners are the students of respondent no.2

institute. Grievance of the petitioners is that their results are not being declared by respondent no.1 on account of a dispute between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners have already deposited their fees with respondent no.2 institute and prays that their results be declared as in case their results are not declared grave prejudice would be caused to their rights as they cannot apply to various institutions for further studies.

5. While, learned counsel for respondent no.1 University submits that respondent no.2 has accepted fees from the students and not paid the share to respondent no.1, learned counsel for respondent no.1 institute submits that the statement of account is to be reconciled and on account of certain disputes between the parties the amounts were not released in favour of respondent no.1.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that a meeting was held in the Office of Controller of Finance and it was agreed that respondent no.2 institute will pay a sum of Rs.23,04,000/- to respondent no.1 university without prejudice to rights and contentions of both parties, upon which the results of the students will be declared.

7. Mr.Anoop Bagai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, has handed over two draft in the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs, each, (total amounting to Rs.10.00 lakhs) and three cheques dated 21.8.2012, 24.8.2012 and 27.8.2012 to learned counsel for respondent no.1 in Court today.

8. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court Director of respondent no.2 is present in Court. He undertakes to the Court that the aforesaid cheque shall be encahsed on presentation. He further submits that he has been explained the consequences of breach of undertaking given to Court.

9. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. Let the results of the students be declared by respondent no.1 forthwith. Director of respondent no.2 shall be bound by the undertaking given to Court.

10. Mr.Bagai submits that respondent no.2 has already approached respondent no.1 for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve all the disputes and differences between the parties. Mr.Talwar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 university, submits that the Vice-Chancellor is seized of the matter.

11. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

G.S.SISTANI, J AUGUST 21, 2012 msr