Madras High Court
Sree Narayana Educational ... vs Pondicheery University on 5 January, 2022
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009, 25866, 25156, 25531, 25663, 25664 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2009, 2 of 2010 (5M.Ps)
W.P.No.22212 of 2009:
Sree Narayana Educational Guidance Society
(Educational Agency of Sree Narayana College of Education)
represented by its Secretary, having office at Cemetry Road,
Mahe-673 310,
Union Territory of Pondicherry. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Pondicheery University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014,
Represented by its Registrar.
2.Deputy Registrar (ACA-II),
Pondicherry University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to
Order No.PU/Aca-7/2009-10/673, dated 29.06.2009, passed by the Second
respondent in so far as the demand for payment of University
Development Fund at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student payable by the
petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
For Petitioner : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi
For M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar & Sai Associates
For R1 and R2 : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi
COMMON ORDER
The circulars dated 29.06.2009 and 05.07.2010 passed by the 2nd
respondent demanding payment of University Development Fund (one
time payment at the time of admission for all students) of Rs.1000/- for
Professional Colleges and Rs.500/- for Arts and Science Colleges.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that
the petitioner Institutions are admitting students from the poor families
who are not in a position even to pay the tuition fees and other charges to
the petitioner Institution. Therefore, enhancement of University
Development Fund from a sum of Rs.25/- to Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- is
beyond the jurisdiction of the University and therefore, the circular is to be
set aside.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment
of this Court dated 06.09.2008 in a both the writ petition W.P.Nos.11870
of 2006 and etc. Relying on the said judgment, it is contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 6
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
University has no authority to enhance the University Development Fund
and more specifically, in the present case the enhancement was exorbitant
that is from a sum of Rs.25/- to Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-, and therefore, the
circulars are to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
University brought to the notice of this Court that the said judgment relied
on by the petitioners were reversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.Nos.591, 661 to 664 and 1209 to 1304 of 2009 dated
27.02.2009. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the University is
competent to collect charges even for development. When the charges
prescribed by the University are upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench,
the said judgment referred by the petitioners is of no avail to them.
5. The decision for enhancing the University Development Fund
was taken by the respondent/University in the year 2004. The writ
petitioners have filed the writ petitions in the 2009 and 2010 challenging
the policy circular issued by the University during the academic years.
6. It is contended that the policy was taken by the University in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 6
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
the year 2004 and was in force for about six years and the circular issued
during the academic year is under challenge. Thus, the writ petitions are
belated.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that enhancement of
University Development Fund periodically is the policy decision taken by
the University. If at all the petitioner seeks any exemption or concession
or otherwise, it is left open to them to approach the University and Court
cannot interfere in such policy decision taken unless such decision is
unconstitutional or opposed to public policy.
8. The point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners is untenable
on the ground that the University all along is collecting Development
Fund of Rs.25/- for several years and the impugned policy circular was
issued enhancing the Development Fund. Therefore, the power was
accepted long back by the Institutions and they were paying the prescribed
amount. This apart the Hon'ble Division Bench also confirmed the said
position. This being the factum, the petitioner has not made out any
acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the policy circular
impugned in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 6
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
9. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
05.01.2022
Jeni/Cse
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes/No
To
1.The Registrar.
Pondicheery University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014,
2.The Deputy Registrar (ACA-II),
Pondicherry University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 6
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009 and etc.,
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni/Cse
W.P.Nos.22212 of 2009, 25866,
25156, 25531, 25663, 25664 of 2010
05.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
