Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhigyan Sarup vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 March, 2022
LPA-236-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111
LPA-236-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.03.2022
ABHIGYAN SARUP
..APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Divay Sarup, Advocate,
for the appellant.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 17.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1581 of 2022, wherein the
writ petition preferred by the appellant as minor through his father seeking
an order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents
from taking any measure to deny the facility of online/offline classes to the
petitioner and further to restrain the respondents to not take any coercive
measures so as to collect the amount of revision of fee in excess of 10% of
the fee charged during the session 2020-21, stands dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain
aspects which include the assertions that the learned Single Judge has not
given him an opportunity to project the case in detail. He has gone to the
extent of saying that the Court had, without considering the grounds which
1 of 3
have been taken, proceeded to decide the writ petition granting liberty to the
petitioner to seek his remedy in the light of the observations made by the
Court in CWP No. 16126 of 2021 decided on 06.09.2021, where, in similar
circumstances, where allegations were that the fee was being charged in
excess, liberty was granted to approach the Fee and Fund Regulatory
Committee for necessary relief, if so advised, without realizing that the said
observations would not be applicable to the case in hand.
Assertion has also been made that the Court had, in the
penultimate paragraph of the order, added that once the schools have now
resumed to normal functioning and the classes are taking place, it was
expected of the appellant to resume payment of the tuition fee regularly
which was being done during the pre-COVID time leaving open the
question with regard to charges to be paid during COVID-19 period to be
decided by the competent authority i.e. the Fee and Fund Regulatory
Committee. These observations, the counsel states, are without any basis
and in the absence of any pleadings to that effect.
When the Court had confronted the counsel with the aspects,
which have been projected before the Court during the course of hearing,
relate to the proceedings, which were conducted before the learned Single
Judge, without there being any observations to that effect and that the
appellant needs to first approach the Court and bring the said facts to the
notice of the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the appellant has not
agreed to the same and has insisted upon the order to be passed by this
Court.
As regards the aspect of the proceedings before the learned
Single Judge, this Division Bench is unable to comment thereupon.
2 of 3
As regards the aspect of the appellant having liberty to
approach the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee for the necessary relief,
which is based upon the observations of this Court in an earlier writ
petition, which was of similar nature, we do not find any reason for
differing from the said opinion, as expressed and recorded by the learned
Single Judge.
No ground is, thus, made out for interfering with the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
March 25, 2022
pj
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
