Delhi High Court
Kriti Bhakuni & Ors. vs Army College Of Medical Science & ... on 29 October, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29th October, 2014
+ LPA No.668/2014
KRITI BHAKUNI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Bina Madhavan with Mr.
Shivendra Singh, Advs.
Versus
ARMY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Col. Balasubramanyam (Retd.) with
Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advs. for R-1&4.
Ms. Chanchal Sharma, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Mukul Talwar with Mr.
Sradhananda Mohapatra & Mr. Vipin
Singh, Advs. for GGSIPU.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 9th September, 2014
of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5842/2014 filed by
the appellants, of refusing interim stay of the Communication dated 23rd
May, 2014 of the respondent no.1 College (impugned in the writ petition)
hiking the tuition fee by 51%, though however permitting the appellants to
pay 50% of the fee due by 25th September, 2014, 25% with 6% interest by
15th December, 2014 and the balance also with 6% interest by 15 th March,
2015. The counsel for the respondents appeared on advance notice and with
consent, we heard the counsels finally at the stage of admission.
2. The challenge before the learned Single Judge to such increase in
tuition fee was on the ground of the same being in violation of Section 6(3)
of the Delhi Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation
Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and other
Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence) Act, 2007 inasmuch as no prior
permission had been taken from the State Fee Regulatory Committee.
However, when the petition came up before the learned Single Judge on 9 th
September, 2014, the counsel for the respondent no.1 College handed over a
copy of the letter dated 3rd October, 2013 of the Government of NCT of
Delhi (GNCTD), Directorate of Higher Education to the Registrar, Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (respondent no.3 herein) stating that
the newly constituted State Fee Regulatory Committee vide its
recommendation dated 3rd May, 2013 had recommended increase in fee for
the wards of Army personnel from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, to bring
the same in parity with the fee for General Category students, for the
academic session 2008-09. It was further informed that the GNCTD had
accepted the said recommendation of the State Fee Regulatory Committee.
The counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners however contended that the
said Fee Regulatory Committee was required to act by Notification and not
by a communication. However, the learned Single Judge, observing that the
Notification would have to be produced by the GNCTD, and in view of the
recommendation of the State Fee Regulatory Committee having been
accepted by the GNCTD, held that no case for grant of stay of increase in
fee had been made out, though notice of the writ petition was issued.
3. The counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners has argued, i) that the
GNCTD has failed to exercise its powers under Section 6(3) of the Act
aforesaid to refer back the matter to the State Fee Regulatory Committee; ii)
that the increase in fee is arbitrary and beyond the maximum permissible cap
of 30%; iii) that the appellants / writ petitioners cannot be equated with
General Category students as the fee of the wards of Army personnel is to be
subsidized by the Army Welfare Education Society; iv) that the appellants
are facing acute hardship on account of such a phenomenal increase.
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent no.1 College has argued
that out of the 59 students, 54 students have already paid the increased fee in
terms of order of the learned Single Judge and it would not be appropriate at
this stage to interfere with the order.
5. We are even otherwise of the view that the scope of interference,
particularly in exercise of jurisdiction in Letters Patent Appeal, with such
interim orders is limited. No error can be found in the exercise of discretion
by the learned Single Judge in so refusing the interim stay but granting time
for payment of the increased fee.
6. No merit is thus found in the appeal which is dismissed.
7. We however clarify that if any of the students has any genuine / bona
fide difficulty in payment of fee within the time extended by the learned
Single Judge, he / she shall be entitled to apply. Needless to further state,
that the said payments shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 29, 2014
'gsr'
