J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE short question which has arisen in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of late fees collected by the respondent university for the examinations held in 1981. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was intending to pursue and prosecute this petition for himself and also in a representative capacity with the permission of this court against the alleged illegal action of the respondent-university. It appears from the record that Rule is issued only against the respondents and no permission is accorded to the petitioner to pursue also in a representative capacity. ( 3 ) THIS matter came to be filed on 17. 8. 1981. Thus it is 13 years old matter. None appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was called out today. This matter is notified in the final hearing board which commenced on 22. 8 Since then this matter was called out time and again but none has appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore in the larger interest of justice instead of dismissing the matter for default this court has thought it expedient to decide the matter on merits after examining the papers and record of the present case. None was also present when the matter was called out for and on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) THE petition is directed against the respondent-university which has refused to refund the amount of late fees collected by it from the students for the examinations held in 1981. The petitioner has inter alia contended that the respondent itself had held the examination very late. It was further contended that since colleges were not functioning from January 1981 till April 1981 it was not possible for the students to find out as to which was the last date for filling up the forms for examinations which is usually done in the second week of April every year. Therefore it is contended that the respondents and the colleges authorities collected the amount of late fees from the students illegally. The university took the examination late in July 1981 and despite that the university has refused to refund the late fees amount to the students. Therefore it is contended that the respondents and the colleges authorities collected the amount of late fees from the students illegally. The university took the examination late in July 1981 and despite that the university has refused to refund the late fees amount to the students. Thus the case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent-university of collecting late fees from the students tantamounts to unjust enrichment. It is further his case that if the university took late fees it is presumed that the university will take examination in the second week of April 1981 as scheduled. On a clear understanding that the examination will be held in April 1981 the last date is fixed by the university and it is not open for the university to go on extending it for examinations and to collect late fees. Thus the main thrust of the present petition is that the respondent universitys action in collecting the late fees for the examination in 1981 in unjust violative of fundamental principles of Article 14 and illegal. ( 5 ) IT is very clear from the record that the applications for admission to various examinations are accepted by the university under Ordinance 129 which prescribes for late fee for convenience and benefit of students with a view to see that year is not lost only on account of their omission to submit their applications within the scheduled time. Due to disturbances on account of agitation of many students against the reservation policy in 1981 the last date for submitting application forms for examinations for law faculty which was on 26. 2. 1981 came to be extended by the university upto 9. 3. 1993 by a circular dated 5. 3 This was further extended till 23. 3. 1981 by circular dated 16. 3. 1981. The circular in this connection is produced at annexure I. ( 6 ) IT is found from the record that the last date for submitting application forms inter alia for law examination was extended and sufficient notice and facility was given to students to give their application forms within the extended time without being required to pay late fee on that count. Therefore those who had submitted their applications for examination including late examination before the extended time late fees were not recovered. Therefore those who had submitted their applications for examination including late examination before the extended time late fees were not recovered. Amount of late fees came to be recovered from those who had not submitted the applications forms within the extended time. The university had made all preparations for the examinations to be undertaken with regard to the application forms received from the students. Thus it appears that the forms for examination came to be accepted on payment of late fees and it was to facilitate those students who could not submit their application forms for examination within the scheduled time as extended by the university. ( 7 ) IT is true that examinations could not be held on due dates on account of emergency like the disturbed situation on account of agitation of many students against the reservation policy. Therefore it cannot be said that there is jurisdiction for claiming refund of late fee amount. ( 8 ) IT may be mentioned that under the provision of section 20 of the Gujarat University Act the Executive Council is authorised to exercise the powers in respect of the items mentioned therein. Under clause (xxxi) the Executive Council is empowered to appoint examiners fix their remuneration and to arrange for the conduct and publication of the result of the examinations and other tests. Clause (xxxii) provides that the Executive council is empowered to fix demand and receive such fees and other charge as may be prescribed by the Ordinances. It is found from the record that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 4. 10. 1972 amended ordinance 129 by adding proviso to the said Ordinance whereby in case of the late receipt of the application form the late fees were required to be recovered. A copy of the said Ordinance is reduced on record and the Ordinance was made effective from 15. 6. 1972. The University court had also approved the said Ordinance as required under the provisions of the Act. It appears that through an error the proviso subsequently added in Ordinance 129 is not incorporated in the University Handbook published. Therefore there appears to be a mistake or misimpression on the part of the petitioner. 6. 1972. The University court had also approved the said Ordinance as required under the provisions of the Act. It appears that through an error the proviso subsequently added in Ordinance 129 is not incorporated in the University Handbook published. Therefore there appears to be a mistake or misimpression on the part of the petitioner. The said Ordinance governs the present case and according to the provisions of the said Ordinance late fees were recovered from the petitioner and other students and it cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the case this court has no hesitation in finding that the present petition is without any substance and therefore it is required to be dismissed. Rule is therefore discharged. No order as to costs. Rule Discharged. .