JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—-Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases, as such, we propose to dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. Facts regarding which learned Counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing, need to be noted briefly. 3. These are, that the respondent No. 1 /University during Academic Session 2001-2002 issued Handbook of Information for different courses. This Handbook of Information related to competitive tests for admission against Subsidised/Self-financing Scheme and upernumerary/Payment/ NRI seats to different Courses run by it. 4. For the purposes of the present cases, we are concerned with the Course i.e. P.G. Diploma Course in E. Commerce. Petitioners in all these cases had joined the course. This was of one years duration spread over two semesters. Students were required to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 per semester in addition to normal fee charged for Diploma Course in Computer Applications by respondent No. 1, as per information provided in the aforesaid Handbook. Petitioners after having been duly selected paid the requisite fees, joined the Course in question and had cleared first semester. 5. After commencement of second semester, fee Rs. 10,000 was demanded by the University from the petitioners who did not deposit the same. Instead of depositing the said fees, they filed the present writ petitions. 6. By interim order of this Court passed on 26.6.2002, all the petitioners/similarly situate students like them, were allowed to provisionally take their examination which was to commence w.e.f. 1.7.2002. But their answer sheets were ordered to be kept in sealed cover. These were to be assessed under orders of this Court. It was further clarified by the Court that because petitioners and other similarly situate students have been permitted to take the examination provisionally, will not confer any right muchless equity in their favour. 7. Trouble started in this case when the demand of Rs. 10,000 for second semester was made by the University from the petitioners in terms of Para 4.7(v) of the Handbook of Information. Needful has admittedly not been done by the petitioners. And with a view to prohibit the University to claim such fee from each one of the petitioners, present writ petitions have been filed. 8. It may be noted in this behalf that though claim for refund of Rs. Needful has admittedly not been done by the petitioners. And with a view to prohibit the University to claim such fee from each one of the petitioners, present writ petitions have been filed. 8. It may be noted in this behalf that though claim for refund of Rs. 10,000 deposited for first semester by each one of the petitioners was made, but this plea was given up at the time of hearing of the writ petitions by Shri Sanjiv Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions. 9. Reason for petitioners being not liable for payment of Rs. 10,000 for the second semester given is, that E. Commerce Course is basically an Information Technology Course in the field of training of commerce. It involves teaching the students like the petitioners basics of computers. Petitioners claim that despite admissions having been carried out in the month of August, 2001, there was no faculty to teach the subjects prescribed for the Course in question. Similarly, they claim that no facilities of Computers, Internet etc. were provided to them in the relevant subjects during first semester. 10. Further case of the petitioners is this, that four subjects to be taught in first semester were (a). Elements of Commerce; (b) Financial and Cost Accounting; (c) Statistical Analysis; and (d) Computer Application in Business. These were taught by the regular faculty of the Department of Commerce, who as per petitioners were not the experts in the field of computers. Similarly, no practical training was given to the petitioners during the first semester Petitioners allege that even in the second semester, one Guest Faculty was arranged. Besides, some students from Regional Computer Centre taught them, they too lacked essential qualification(s) to teach the students of Post Graduate Diploma in E. Commerce. Subjects taught in second semester were, (a) Internet & Web Designing; (b) E. Commerce; (c) Online Marketing and E-CRM, and (d) Legal Security and other Issues. 11. In the aforesaid background, it was argued that demand for Rs. 10,000 from the petitioners by the University for second semester, is arbitrary and illegal, besides being against the principles of natural justice. Since the University has failed to teach the Course in question with necessary equipments and tools, claim of fees as aforesaid was not tenable. In this behalf, it may also be noted that further stand of the petitioners in their. Since the University has failed to teach the Course in question with necessary equipments and tools, claim of fees as aforesaid was not tenable. In this behalf, it may also be noted that further stand of the petitioners in their. rejoinder is that the same was managed by students themselves and the Professors who were teaching B.Com. or M.Com. Classes were neither qualified nor eligible to have taught the subjects of the Course in question. 12. When put to notice, respondents/University admitted that the Course in question was started by it, under the §elf-financing scheme, as such, students like the petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 10,000 per semester in addition to the routine fees. According to University, there were four disciplines/ papers in E. Commerce, 1st Course which were taught by the Professors named as under :— Name of the Professor Subject Prof. Kulbhushan Prof. Sagar Vijay Malhotra Elements of Commerce Prof. S.S. Narta Financial & Cost Accounting Prof. Om Prakash Verma Statistical Analysis Prof. Bal Krishan Computer Application in Business. 13. Respondents in their reply have stated that these teachers possess the requisite educational qualifications and were thus competent to have taught the subjects of E. Commerce. However, from the tenor of the reply, it is clear that computers were not there and only four computers were allegedly hired by the Department of Commerce from the Department of Computer Sciences and were installed in the Department of Commerce. These were being used by the students (petitioners) during the first semester and also in the beginning of second semester. University further pleaded that it had purchased thirteen Computers on 18.4.2002 alongwith tables and chairs. Whether softwares which were necessary for teaching either in the first semester or in the second semester were there, not a single word has been said by the respondents in this behalf. 14. With a view to meet the plea of the petitioners, that each paper was to carry 100 marks i.e. 70 marks for theory and 30 marks for practical, respondents claim that so far 30 marks of practical are concerned, those are for internal assessment and are awarded by the concerned teacher on the basis of practical work done by the students. Regarding non-availability of Internet facility, it has been stated that the same was provided and was being used by number of students and teachers in their daily routine work. Regarding non-availability of Internet facility, it has been stated that the same was provided and was being used by number of students and teachers in their daily routine work. And Internet is one of the many aspects of the computers and students of E. Commerce are concerned with other facilities. Thus, claim of the petitioners that neither there was requisite faculty to teach, nor enough number of computers etc. being available in the academic session 2001-2002 in the P.G. Diploma Course in E. Commerce, was denied. Consequently, they prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions. 15. University is an expert body on the subject. At least this Court does not have the expertise to ascertain whether necessary qualified faculty was there to teach alongwith requisite number of computer etc. or not. In case, respondents are able to satisfy the Court that proper infrastructure for teaching was there, writ petitions must fail. Otherwise, law will take its course. 16. When a reference is made to the pleadings of the parties, it can safely be held that requisite number of computers were not available for teaching the students during 1st semester. So for plea of faculty being available to teach the course in question, there is nothing placed before the Court by the respondents. In case, computers were not required for the purpose of teaching the petitioners, there was no question of those having been hired as admitted by the respondents in the reply to Para-3 of the writ petition. What was to be the students-computers ratio, there could not have better person than the respondents to explain it. They have purposely kept silent and as will be seen from the discussion hereinafter. Reasons are not difficult to be found out. 17. In addition to the above, respondents admit that for 1st and 2nd semesters, total expenditure for required computers was Rs. 7,00,000. This amount was to be spent by the University. It was only after taking requisite steps and calling for tenders that computers alongwith tables and chairs were purchased. On their own showing, computers were installed on 18.4.2002. From this, ratio of students-computers can safely be inferred. Otherwise, we see no reason why the University purchased thirteen computers for twenty students for the Course in question. It was only after taking requisite steps and calling for tenders that computers alongwith tables and chairs were purchased. On their own showing, computers were installed on 18.4.2002. From this, ratio of students-computers can safely be inferred. Otherwise, we see no reason why the University purchased thirteen computers for twenty students for the Course in question. Similarly, if four computers were enough, those were admittedly hired for teaching during 1st semester, then why the respondents purchased thirteen computers for 2nd semester. This leads to the inference that the requisite number of computers were never available for teaching the students, at least during 1st semester. There is nothing on record placed by the respondents whether thirteen number of computers were functional after-18.4.2002. 18. Again, who were members of teaching faculty could not be explained by the University. Regarding 1st semester, details have been given, but qua 2nd semester, nothing is stated. Similarly what was to be the minimum qualification of the Faculty Member(s) to teach Course in question and what are the qualifications of the Faculty Members who taught the petitioners during both the semesters, there is not a word said by the respondents in their reply. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for University could not satisfy the Court in this behalf. We are further constrained to observe that since this was a self-financing scheme Course, on receipt of the fee for the first semester, immediate steps ought to have been taken for proving adequate teaching faculty and other requisite equipments, like computers etc. Rather admitted case of the respondents is that by the time 3/5th of the syllabus of the 2nd semester had been completed, thirteen numbers of computers were purchased. Mere installation of computers would not be enough unless it was further shown from the contemporaneous record that since what were the other equipments/tools provided for the use of students, and above those were operational. For connecting these thirteen computers, whether there was one or more Internet connections, everything has been kept delightfully vague by the respondents for reasons best known to them. 19. For connecting these thirteen computers, whether there was one or more Internet connections, everything has been kept delightfully vague by the respondents for reasons best known to them. 19. At the cost of repetition, we may point out that when a reference is made to the pleadings of the respondents, those are general in character lacking material facts which could only be replied by them, so as to enable this Court to uphold its plea that faculty as well as adequate equipments were available for teaching the petitioners and they availed the same. Who were the teachers who could teach the course content of E. Commerce as per syllabus, there is nothing on record. 20. It is unfortunate that respondents though had floated the Course in question, yet has not cared to state all the facts in their reply as the minimum required qualification of the faculty members for teaching the subjects in both the semesters of P.G. Diploma Course in E. Commerce and which of the teachers referred to in their reply possessed such qualifications. 21. At the time of hearing, Shri K. D. Shreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents forcefully urged that requisite number of qualified teachers were there to teach in both the semesters, who as per him had in fact taught the petitioners. He further pointed out that necessary equipments were there also to teach the petitioners. We have noted that it was for the respondents to have first spelt out the necessary qualifications for teaching the subjects prescribed for Post Graduate Diploma in E. Commerce and thereafter to have given the details of faculty members who possessed the requisite qualifications. This was not only required to be pleaded, but necessary evidence in that behalf was to be placed on record by the respondents. More particularly when the petitioners had pleaded in the writ petitions as well as in their rejoinder(s) regarding lack of qualified teachers and equipments. 22. Syllabus of P.G. Diploma in E. Commerce as per respondents is as under:— "Diploma in E. Commerce : Each paper will be of 70 marks and 30 marks are for internal assessment/practicals based on class participation, attendance, and presentation. Each paper will be of three-hours duration. For inculcating the managerial skills business games, role playing, case studies, quiz, semester etc. will be applied. Each paper will be of three-hours duration. For inculcating the managerial skills business games, role playing, case studies, quiz, semester etc. will be applied. First Semester : Course 1 : Elements of Commerce Course 2 : Statistical Analysis Course 3 : Basics of Financial and Cost Accounting Course 4 : Computer Applications in Business Second Semester : Course 5 : Programming languages Course 6 : Internet and We Page Designing Course 7 : Data Based Management Course 8 : E-Commerce." 23. This clearly shows that besides 70 marks, 30 marks in each paper are for internal assessment/practical. Practical pre-supposes that adequate training is given to students concerned so that they are in a position to appear in practical examination. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that no marks are there for practical, rather those are for internal assessment and the assessment is made by the teachers. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the vague and cryptic stand of the respondents, we are satisfied that neither necessary faculty to teach nor adequate equipment like computers etc. was there provided by respondents to teach the students who joined in 2001-2002 Session of P.G. Diploma Course in E. Commerce under self-financing scheme. Once this conclusion is arrived at, we find no justification for the claim of Rs. 10,000 by the respondents for each semester from the petitioners. 25. Another argument addressed by Shri K.D. Shreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/University also needs to be noted here. Per him, petitioners are estopped from challenging the inadequacy of qualified faculty members/teachers to teach them since they had undergone the Course in question. 26. This plea is not open to the respondents, particularly in view of their stand in reply which was reiterated at the time of hearing also. 27. There is another reason to reject this plea. It is that when respondents held out the Course in question under self-financing scheme, it was pre-supposed that not only the teaching faculty, but other requisite infrastructure is there or in any case would be made available for teaching. This on the showing of the respondents, is lacking in the instant case since four computers were operational in first semester and thirteen were installed at the fag-end of the Course in question during 2nd semester. 28. No other point is urged. 29. This on the showing of the respondents, is lacking in the instant case since four computers were operational in first semester and thirteen were installed at the fag-end of the Course in question during 2nd semester. 28. No other point is urged. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all these writ petitions are allowed and as a consequence of it, respondents are prohibited from claiming/ recovering Rs. 10,000 from each one of the petitioners in these cases towards the fees for second semester. And because the petitioners were allowed to take the examination provisionally, respondents are further commanded to get their answer sheets of the petitioners evaluated and thereafter declare their result with utmost expedition and despatch. 30. Before parting with this case, we, however, hope and expect that in future, qualified faculty members/teaching staff with the aid of requisite equipment would be there so that such a situation does not re-occur. This we are observing keeping in view the specific plea of the petitioners that only three students have joined the Course in question during the academic session 2002-2003 against twenty seats, which factual position was not controverted by the respondents. 31. Looking to the controversy involved in these cases, these writ petitions have been finally disposed of after those were formally admitted. Writ petition disposed of.