Madras High Court
Immaculate College Of Education ... vs Pondicherry University on 8 March, 2022
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
Immaculate College of Education for Women,
Run by The Immaculate Heart of Mary Society,
rep. by its Principal,
Pakkumudayanpet,
Puducherry-605 008. .. Appellant in
W.A.No.409/2022
Sree Narayana Educational Guidance Society,
(Educational Agency of Sree Narayana
College of Education),
rep. by its Secretary,
Having office at Cemetery Road,
Mahe-673 310,
Union Territory of Pondicherry. .. Appellant in
W.A.No.419/2022
M/s.Senthil Education Society,
rep. by its Secretary,
No.36, Thiyaga Raja Street,
Puducherry-605 001. .. Appellant in
W.A.No.430/2022
____________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
Idhaya College of Arts & Science,
Run by the Immaculate Heart of Mary Society,
rep. by its Secretary,
Pakkumudayanpet,
Puducherry-605 008. .. Appellant in
W.A.No.431/2022
Vs
1.Pondicherry University,
rep. by its Registrar,
Kalapet,
Pondicherry-605 014.
2.Deputy Registrar (ACA-II),
Pondicherry University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014. .. Respondents in
all appeals
Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
common order dated 05.01.2022 in W.P.Nos.25664 of 2010; 22212 of
2009; 25663 of 2010 and 25866 of 2010.
For the Appellants : Mr.Godson Swaminathan
For the Respondents : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
By these writ appeals, a challenge is made to the common
order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
whereby the writ petitions preferred by the writ appellant colleges
were dismissed. The writ petitions were filed to challenge the orders
of the second respondent for demand of University Development
Fund at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student.
2. In the writ petitions, the challenge to the demand of the
University Development Fund at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student
was made in reference to the Pondicherry University Act, 1985 (for
short, "the Act of 1985"). It was submitted that similar levy of
fee/fund was the subject-matter of challenge in W.P.No.11870 of
2006 etc. batch and by the order dated 06.09.2008, the writ
petitions were disposed of. The learned Single Judge, however,
found that the order in W.P.No.11870 of 2006 etc. batch was
reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.591, 661 to
664 and 1209 to 1304 of 2009, decided on 27.02.2009. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the
University is empowered to collect the University Development Fund
at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
3. Learned counsel for the writ appellants submitted that as
per the Act of 1985, the University can provide for the fees to be
charged for courses of study in the University and for admission to
the examinations, degrees and diplomas of the University. Section
27 of the Act of 1985 does not permit levy of any other charges
than the fee for the course/study. Going beyond Section 27 of the
Act of 1985 and also beyond his competence, the second respondent
has imposed the University Development Fund to be collected from
each student. By a resolution of the Executive Council, the word
"fee" was changed to "fund" and, accordingly, the respondents
started collecting the University Development Fund going beyond
their competence. Accordingly, the learned Single Jude ought to
have accepted the challenge, as heavy burden has been cast upon
the students to pay the University Development Fund, which was
initially Rs.25/- and later on enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per student.
The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petitions
without even referring to the argument placed by learned counsel
for the writ appellants, especially when the University cannot act
against the provisions of the Act of 1985 and for that even the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
Executive Council has no power to amend the Ordinances or
statutes. In view of the above, a prayer is made to set aside the
impugned common order of the learned Single Judge and also the
demand notices issued to the writ appellant colleges, as otherwise
they were not collecting the University Development Fund from the
students after the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge
in the pending writ petitions till its disposal.
4. The writ appeals have been contested by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the
University Development Fund is being charged and paid by the
colleges from the year 1998. Initially, the amount of University
Development Fund was Rs.25/- per student for the entire course and
subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per student in the year
2004. Charging of University Development Fund is one time event
for a student and it was collected from the students and being paid
by the colleges till a challenge was made in the year 2009.
5. So far as the legal issue is concerned, learned counsel for
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
the respondents submitted that the appellants have referred to
Section 27 of the Act of 1985 ignoring Section 5, which is in
reference to the powers of the University. Section 5(20) of the Act
of 1985 empowers the University to demand and receive payment of
fees and other charges. The word "other charges" includes any
charges which may be the University Development Fund. Yet to
make the things appropriately clear, the word "fee" was clarified as
"fund" by the Executive Council to amend the statutes. The
decision of the Executive Council was not challenged by the writ
appellant colleges and otherwise, the burden to pay the fee/fund
towards the University Development Fund was not on the colleges,
but on the students. The colleges are to collect the fund from the
students and pay to the University. Yet without burden on the
colleges, a challenge to the demand was made and, therefore, the
learned Single Judge, finding no reason to entertain the writ
petitions, rightly dismissed the same.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on
record.
7. The challenge to the demand of the University Development
Fund has been raised in reference to Section 27(1)(e) of the Act of
1985. The provision aforesaid is quoted herein under for ready
reference:
"27. Ordinances.- (1) Subject to the provisions of
this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may
provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) the fees to be charged for courses of study
in the University and for admission to the
examinations, degrees and diplomas of the
University; ....."
(emphasis supplied)
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has referred
to Section 5(20) of the Act of 1985, which is also quoted herein
under for ready reference:
"5.Powers of the University.- The University shall
have the following powers, namely:-
(1) to (19) ....
(20) to demand and receive payment of fees
and other charges;
...."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Section 27 of the Act of 1985 permits Ordinances on the
subject-matter given therein and Section 27(1)(e) permits the fees
to be charged for courses of study in the University and for
admission to the examinations, degrees and diplomas of the
University. Section 27(q) of the Act of 1985 is referred and quoted
herein under:
"27(q) all other matters which by this Act or the
Statutes may be provided for by the Ordinances."
The aforesaid is quoted to show that all other matters which by the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
Act of 1985 or the statutes may be provided by the Ordinances
10. In view of the above, the Ordinances may not only cover
the subject-matter stated in Section 27(1)(a) to (p), but all other
matters which by the Act of 1985 or the statues may be provided for
by the Ordinances. The aforesaid is to be considered in the light of
Section 5(20) of the Act of 1985, quoted above.
11. Section 5 of the Act of 1985 refers to powers of the
University, which includes power to demand and receive payment of
fees and other charges. Thus, not only the fee, but other charges
can also be demanded by the University. Accordingly, we do not
find any merit in the argument of the writ appellants that the
demand of University Development Fund is beyond the competence
of the University. Rather, it is covered by Section 5(20) of the Act
of 1985, as according to the definition "other charges" cannot
exclude the demand of University Development Fund. In view of the
above, we do not find that the demand of the University
Development Fund was beyond the competence of the University.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
12. Learned counsel for the writ appellants has referred to
Section 27 of the Act of 1985 without taking note that the subject-
matters indicated therein are for the Ordinances and not regarding
powers of the University.
13. At this stage, it would be necessary to further refer the
facts of this case. The University Development Fund was first
imposed in the year 1998, which was a sum of Rs.25/- per student.
All the colleges, including the writ appellant colleges, collected the
said amount and paid to the University without any protest. The
amount of University Development Fund was enhanced in the year
2004 from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/- per student for the entire period of
courses of study and again till the year 2009, none of the colleges
before us raised an objection to it. Rather, writ petitions were filed
when notices raising the demand for payment of the amount were
given. It is no doubt true that initially an interim order was passed
by the learned Single Judge, but finally the writ petitions were
dismissed.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
14. It could not be clarified that when the University
Development Fund was imposed for the first time in the year 1998,
if it was not permissible as per the Act of 1985, why every college
was collecting and paying the amount aforesaid without any protest.
It was even thereafter collected from the students when the same
was enhanced in the year 2004. It may be limited to some students
leaving others. The fact remains that the colleges were collecting
and paying the amount aforesaid since 1998.
15. The issue is further required to be examined on the
liability of the colleges. The amount of University Development
Fund is to be collected from the students and is not a burden on the
colleges. None of the students has come forward to challenge the
demand of the University Development Fund. Rather, it has been
challenged by the colleges having no burden on it. The writ
appellant colleges are trying to justify the filing of appeals stating
that the demand would be a burden on the poor students, without
placing any facts and figures in support thereof. In any case, it is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
not the burden on the colleges. Rather, they have collected it from
the students and paid to the University. It is more so when the
University Development Fund is to be used for the development of
the University in all respects as otherwise, to manage the affairs of
the colleges remains difficult in the absence of sufficient fund for it.
Therefore, we do not find even reason to challenge the demand of
the University Development Fund.
16. In view of the above and taking note of the judgment of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we do not find any ground to
cause interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It is even in reference to the decision of the Executive Council to
amend the word "fee" to that of "fund". Even if it is ignored, the
fact remains that the University Development Fund falls within the
definition of "other charges" given in Section 5(20) of the Act of
1985.
17. Examining the case from all corners and finding no merit
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
in the writ appeals, the same are dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3112, 3117, 3148, 3153,
3182, 3184, 3185 and 3186 of 2022 are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
08.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To:
1.The Registrar,
Pondicherry University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014.
2.The Deputy Registrar (ACA-II),
Pondicherry University,
Kalapet, Pondicherry-605 014.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.Nos.409, 419, 430 and 431 of 2022
08.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
