Pulkit Khurana vs National Law University, Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 25 Del

                                                                              #2
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 8182/2013 & CM APPL. 17274/2013

       PULKIT KHURANA                   ..... Petitioner
                   Through              Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate
                                        with Mr. Vibhor Garg and Miss
                                        Suvarna Kashyap, Advocates
                         versus

       NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI ..... Respondent
                   Through  None


%                                 Date of Decision : 2nd January, 2014

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the hostel rules/regulations of the respondent-University mandating the B.A.,LL.B. (Hons.) programme to be residential. The petitioner has also prayed for reconsideration of semester fees charged by the respondent-University.

2. Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the condition of mandatory residential five years stay at the campus, imposed by the respondent-University is not only financially onerous but

illegal as well. Mr. Gupta submits that the Bar Council of India has not made B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) a compulsory residential based programme.

3. Mr. Gupta adds that hardly any Judges, Attorney General(s), Law Officers, Senior Advocates or Advocates including the teachers teaching in the respondent-University have passed out from a mandatory residential law college.

4. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as having perused the replies given to queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the respondent-University as well as by the Bar Council of India, this Court is of the view that there is no legal bar in setting up a residential university. In fact, it has been left to the discretion of the respondent-University to decide as to whether it wants to have a residential programme for law course or not.

5. Admittedly, the respondent-University is an autonomous body established by the Act No. 1 of 2008 of Government of NCT of Delhi and a copy of the impugned hostel rules have been approved by the Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 11th August, 2008. Consequently, the respondent-University is entitled in law to offer a residential based B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) course.

6. As far as the plea that there is no distinction between a mandatory residential law college and a non-residential law college is concerned, this Court is of the view that petitioner has the option to choose between a residential university and a university that offers only a LL.B. day course. But in the opinion of this Court, it is for the university to choose as to whether it wants to offer a residential course or a non-residential LL.B. course. Petitioner as a law student cannot dictate terms to the university.

7. As far as challenge to the fee structure is concerned, no material has been placed on record to show that the fees being charged by the respondent-University is not commensurate to the cost that has been incurred on setting up of the respondent-University. The comparison between an old engineering college and a new university college that has recently been set up is just like comparing apples and oranges.

8. Consequently, present petition and application are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 02, 2014 rn