Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:39768-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 1121/2024
Rama Purohit D/o Shri Vijay Purohit, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
House No. A-57, Prithviraj Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical Education, Chikitsa Shiksha
Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur.
(Mail Id - [email protected])
2. Smt. Gayatri A. Rathore, Principal Secretary, Department
Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(E-Mail Id - [email protected])
3. Shri Harphool Pankaj, Registrar, Rajasthan University Of
Health Sciences, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratapnagar,
Jaipur (Raj.) 302033. (E-Mail Id - [email protected])
4. Mr. Raghvendra S. Kurdekar, Principal, Vyas Dental
College And Hospital, Kudi Haud, Nh-62, Pali Road,
Jodhpur (Raj.) - 342016.
5. Mr. Manish Vyas, Chairman, Vyas Dental College And
Hospital, Kudi Haud, Nh-62, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) -
342016.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain for resp. No.3.
Mr. Ankit Jain
Mr. Raghvendra for resp. No.4 and
Mr. Manish Vyas for resp. No.5,
present in person.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Order
08/09/2025
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 10:35:27 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39768-DB] (2 of 4) [WCP-1121/2024]
Heard.
This contempt petition has been preferred against the order
dated 31.05.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13535/2020, the operative portion
whereof which reads as under:-
"54. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The action of
the respondent private institutions and the medical/dental
institutions run by the State Government in levying
advance fee in addition to annual fee for one year from
the students admitted to the medical courses and insisting
upon each and every student to submit the bank
guarantee at the time of admission equivalent to the fee
for 3½ years of course duration, is declared illegal. The
respondent private institutions and the institutions run by
the State Government are restrained from recovering any
amount as advance fee in addition to the fee for one year
from any student admitted to the course. The respondent
private institutions and the State Government are directed
not to insist upon furnishing of bank guarantee towards
the fee for entire duration of the course from each and
every student. The respondent private medical institutions
shall be at liberty to ask for the bond/bank guarantee
from a particular student in conformity with the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academy's
case (supra) as discussed/explained hereinabove by this
Court. The advance fee in addition to the fee for one year
already recovered by any of the private institutions from
the students admitted to the medical courses shall be kept
in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank against which no
loan or advance may be granted. The advance fee
deposited as aforesaid shall carry interest at the rate
equivalent to the rate of interest admissible on fixed
deposit by the nationalized bank. The interest already
accrued and the future interest on the amount of advance
fee shall be paid to the students from whom the advance
fees were collected at the time of admission. The State
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 10:35:27 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39768-DB] (3 of 4) [WCP-1121/2024]
Government is directed to ensure the compliance of the
directions issued by this Court as aforesaid. No order as to
costs."
A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the order dated
26.05.2025, which reads as under:-
"1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
we find that the collection of fees by issuance of notice on
01.06.2024 for a session which actually started in
January, 2025 is in contempt of order passed by this
Court on 31.05.2021 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL)
No.13535/2020 (Deepesh Singh Beniwal Vs. Union of
India & Ors.
2. Respondents Nos.4 & 5 are directed to remain
present in the Court on 21.07.2025."
In compliance of the said order, today respondent No.4-Mr.
Raghvendra S. Kurdekar and respondent No.5-Mr. Manish Vyas are
present in person, before this Court today. Learned counsel for the
respondent-contemnors and the contemnors explained to this
Court that without waiting for the result of the next year, they are
starting provisional session for the next year, which is allowed by
the University. They have explained that the fee is being collected
for five years only, which is the total duration of the course.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that
the fee being charged is even before the provisional session
begins and, thus, amounts to an advance fee and is barred by the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court quoted above.
Learned counsel for the respondent-contemnors and
respondent No.5 Mr. Manish Vyas present in person, assure this
Court and submit that they had no intention of disobeying the
order of this Court. They further assure this Court that all the
necessary compliance of the order shall be made in its true spirit.
Learned counsel for the respondent-contemnors further assures
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 10:35:27 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39768-DB] (4 of 4) [WCP-1121/2024]
the Court that whenever the proposed session begins, they shall
charge the fee and at the same time ensure that no advance fee is
being charged. Respondent Nos.4 & 5 also apologized for the
bonafide misunderstanding resulting in the college gathering few
months advance fee for the starting of the proposed session.
In light of the limited submission made, the apology
rendered by the respondents and the assurance given by them
that in future they shall take fee from the students only once the
proposed session begins for that particular session, is accepted.
In view of the above, the present contempt petition no more
survives and the same is hereby dismissed.
Notices are discharged.
Needless to say that if any bias is caused, the student-
petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application in this matter.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
37-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 10:35:27 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
