Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 5508 of 2021
Between:-
MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI RAMAVTAR
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILlAGE
DUBHAI KALA, POST DUBAHAI KHURD
GANGEO, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NITYA NAND MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF M.P.
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER , HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT IV FLOOR, SATPURA BHAWAN
BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH UNIVERSITY REWA
THR. THE REGISTRAR A.P.S. UNIVERSITY
DISTT. REWA M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGE
TEONTHAR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YOGESH DHANDE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE, SHRI DIVYA KRISHNA BILAIYA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3-UNIVERSITY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE DWARKA
DHISH BANSAL passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the action of
respondent No.3-Awadhesh Pratap Singh University of charging the
exorbitant amount of Rs.8,000/- as enrollment fees from the petitioner who is
student of the respondent No.3 University and is pursuing LLB Course.
2. The petitioner submits that he is domicile of State of Madhya Pradesh
and belongs to Rewa District. He completed his school education from Rewa
District and thereafter went for further studies and took admission in Guru
Ghasidas University Bilaspur, from where he completed his graduation course
and obtained Bachelor Degree in Arts in the year 1997 and at that time
Bilaspur was part of the State of Madhya Pradesh and accordingly, he claims
to be domicile of State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner submits that despite
the aforesaid backdrop the petitioner is being treated by the respondent-
university to be the student outside of M.P. and on that basis vide notification
dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-7) he is being charged enrollment fees of
Rs.1,000/- and migration fees of Rs.7,000/- whereas the petitioner is liable to
pay only Rs.500/- for enrollment fees as he is the resident/domicile of State of
Madhya Pradesh.
3. The petitioner has raised sufficient pleadings in that regard from para
5.2 to 5.9 of the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that the action of
charging fees of Rs.8,000/- as enrollment fees be quashed and the respondent-
university be directed to charge only Rs.500/- as enrollment fees from the
petitioner.
4. Although the petitioner has made the State of M.P. and three others as
party to the petition, but in the present case only respondent No.3-University
appears to be necessary party, who has filed its return. Surprisingly, the
respondent No.3 has neither filed parawise reply of the petition, nor has
countered/denied the contentions made in the petition with regard to domicile
of the petitioner and completion period of his education of Bachelor Degree
from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. Resultantly, the relevant averments
of the petition have remained unchallenged.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification dated
11.04.2016 issued by the University is clear with regard to payment/charging
of fees and the University is not competent to charge more fees than
mentioned in the notification itself. Relevant part of the notification dated
11.04.2016 is reproduced as under :-
1- lkaLd`frd 'kqYd [email protected]& izfr o"kZ
2- ukekadu 'kqYd e/;izns'k ds Nk=ksa ls [email protected]&
3- ukekadu 'kqYd e/;izns'k ds ckgj ls vk;s Nk=ksa ls [email protected]&
4- ukekadu foyEc 'kqYd [email protected]&
5- vkcztu 'kqYd e-iz- ds ckgj ls vk;s Nk=ksa ls
¼fof/k ,oa ch-,M- rFkk ch-ih-,M- Nk=ksa dks NksM+dj½ [email protected]&
6- vkcztu 'kqYd e-iz- ds ckgj ls vk;s fof/k ds Nk=ksa ls [email protected]&
7- vkcztu 'kqYd e-iz- ds ckgj ls vk;s ¼ch-,M- ,oa
ch-ih-,M ds Nk=ksa ls½ [email protected]&
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/university opposes the prayer made
by the petitioner but without demolishing the case of petitioner with regard to
his residence/domicile of the State of M.P. so also with regard to completion
of his Bachelor education from Bilaspur, prior to coming into existence of
State of Chattisgarh, which came into existence on 1 st November, 2000 and by
placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.
Aamira Fathima and Ors. vs. Annamalai University and Ors., reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 171 argued about competency of charging fees by the Fee
Fixation Committee and submits that there is no illegality in charging of the
fees in question.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
8. From bare perusal of notification dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-7) it is
clear that the University can charge the enrollment fees of Rs.500/- only, from
the students belonging to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the aforesaid clause
No.3 and 6 of the notification are applicable to the students who have come from
outside of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Bare perusal of the documentary
evidence of the petitioner including the unrebutted averments made in the
petition makes the position clear that the petitioner is resident of State of Madhya
Pradesh and had completed his graduation course from Guru Ghasidas
University, Bilaspur in the year 1997 i.e. prior to coming into existence of the
State of Chhattisgarh and now he wants to pursue his studies in the respondent
No.3-University, being resident of the State of M.P.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, in our considered opinion merely because the
petitioner completed his education from Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur, he
cannot be treated as the student coming from outside of the State of M.P. and,
therefore, the respondent No.3-University cannot charge fees more than Rs.500/-
as is clear from the aforesaid notification dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-7).
10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. If the respondent
No.3-University has already charged the amount in excess of Rs.500/-, the
petitioner is entitled either to refund of it or to get adjusted it in the future fees
chargeable by the respondent No.3-university towards future studies.
10. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is allowed and disposed
of.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss
Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU
Date: 2022.05.07 16:15:27 +05'30'
