ORDER In the instant case, petitioner has sought to declare the action on the part of respondents in demanding double fees to the course called "Master of Visual Arts" as per communication dated 23rd February, 2006 vide Annexure-Q issued by third respondent as illegal and void and to issue a direction, directing the respondents, restricting them from demanding double fees from the petitioner and permit him to complete the course by paying single fee on par with others by considering the representing made by the petitioner vide Annexure-S, dated 28th February, 2006. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to adjust the additional amount towards payment of admission fees and examination fees for the 4th semester in respect of Master of Visual Arts course and to refund the balance amount along with interest to the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that, petitioner has taken admission in the respondents-Kannada University ('University' for short) in respect of 'Master of Visual Arts' for the academic year 2004-05 which consists of four semesters. Accordingly, he has been admitted to the said course and petitioner has paid the necessary fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester for first, second and third semesters respectively. When things stood thus and when petitioner was supposed to take admission for the last and final fourth semester, he received a communication from the University dated 8th February, 2006 vide Annexure-N directing him to be personally present before the University on 24th February, 2006 and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and also to take further instructions from the University. Immediately after the receipt of the said communication vide Annexure-N, petitioner- has replied to the said communication on 15th February, 2006 vide Annexure-P, stating that, he has paid in all an excess fee of Rs. 10,500/- at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per semester and therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,5001- towards fourth semester may be deducted/adjusted and balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- may please be returned/refunded to him. Further, he has also stated that, he would prepare the dissertation/thesis independently and he need not have to come to the University on 24th February, 2006. The respondents, after realising the error that had crept in while mentioning the amount in the communication sent to petitioner, i.e., instead of mentioning Rs. 7,000/- it was mentioned as Rs. Further, he has also stated that, he would prepare the dissertation/thesis independently and he need not have to come to the University on 24th February, 2006. The respondents, after realising the error that had crept in while mentioning the amount in the communication sent to petitioner, i.e., instead of mentioning Rs. 7,000/- it was mentioned as Rs. 3,500/- by inadvertence vide Annexure-N, has issued another communication dated 23rd February, 2006 vide Annexure-Q, stating that, the amount mentioned as Rs. 3,500/- was in respect of Lecturers who are serving inside the University and for outsiders, the fee fixed is double the fee that is fixed for insiders, i.e., Rs. 7,000/-. Further, the authority informed the petitioner to get admitted to fourth semester of Master of Visual Arts by paying a sum of Rs. 7,000/and also communicated the petitioner telephonically. The petitioner instead of paying the said amount, has sent a detailed reply on 28th February, ·2006, vide Annexure-S furnishing all the details and also bringing to the notice of the University that, the University has made discrimination in collecting the fee inasmuch as they have demanded a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for other candidates and from him they have demanded a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. Since the University did not permit the petitioner to prosecute his fourth semester in Master of Visual Arts course and did not adjust the fee at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per semester as has been done in respect of other candidates who are insiders, as he has already paid a sum of Rs. 10,500/- in excess in respect of first, second and third semesters at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate directions, as referred above. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the University has collected the fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester by making discrimination and the same is one without any jurisdiction. He submitted that, preventing the petitioner from attending the classes even when it is brought to the notice of the authorities that, he has been discriminated from other students and has to be treated on par with other students who are prosecuting their studies, is highly discriminatory. He submitted that, preventing the petitioner from attending the classes even when it is brought to the notice of the authorities that, he has been discriminated from other students and has to be treated on par with other students who are prosecuting their studies, is highly discriminatory. Hence, in view of the discrimination made by the University, petitioner was constrained to give a detailed reply vide Annexure-S. Further, he vehemently submitted that, there is no compulsion that, petitioner should attend the classes commencing during March 2006 which would conclude on 2nd of April, 2006. It is also the case of petitioner that, the course taken up by petitioner does not require the candidates to attend the classes compulsorily nor the University has produced any specific regulation to the effect that, petitioner should regularly and compulsorily attend the classes conducted by the University. Further, so far as· the submission of dissertation/thesis is concerned, he submitted that, still he has time to submit the same as the fourth semester is not yet over. Therefore, he submitted that, still he has six days at his disposal and he may be permitted to attend the classes and to appear for the examination. He further submitted that, the stand taken by University is not justifiable nor the University is entitled to collect double fees only from petitioner unlike other candidates and the University is liable to refund the excess fee paid by petitioner and collected by it for previous three semesters. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent-University, inter alia, contended and substantiated at the outset that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is highly misconceived one and the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself in view of suppression of material facts before this Court and in not approaching the Court with clean hands. To substantiate the said submission, he drew my attention to communication sent by petitioner himself dated 9th September, 2004 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, requesting to extend the benefit of prosecuting the Masters degree in Visual Arts in respect of outsiders also had to provide admission to him and the same would be beneficial for' him to secure further promotion and would be an additional knowledge to him. Pursuant to the communication sent by him on 9th September, 2004, requesting admission to Masters Degree in Visual Arts as a special case, the University placed the matter before the Executive Committee of the University and the Executive Committee of the University took a decision on 10th September, 2004 in its 86th Executive meeting held and resolved to permit the petitioner to get himself admitted to Masters degree in Visual Arts however, subject to condition that, petitioner should pay double the fees fixed for insiders at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester as he is an outsider (for insiders, it is Rs. 3,500/- per semester). The said decision has not been disputed by petitioner and thereafter, he has paid the said fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester in respect of first, second and third semesters respectively. Further, he submitted that, it is mandatory that, a candidate should attend classes for 28 days in respect of the fourth semester. To substantiate the said stand, he has taken me through Annexure-A produced by petitioner himself along with the writ petition and drew my attention to item No.2, which stipulates that, the candidates should stay in the campus and attend classes for 28 days. Further, he has taken me through Regulations 4.2 and 4.3 of the University in respect of fourth semester of Master of Visual Arts Course. As per Regulation 4.3 of the University, the candidate is supposed to complete his dissertation/thesis· within the closure of fourth semester and get it corrected from the guide allotted to him and thereafter submit the same in five sets for final valuation to the Head of the Department. Further, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-University took strong objection to the words used by petitioner in the communication addressed to Vice-Chancellor of the University. He submitted that, the petitioner being a senior most Lecturer and highly experienced in the field, having taken the admission as a special case, thereafter, sending the communication dated 28th February, 2006 and the language/words used by him is in very poor taste and has even gone to the extent of stating that, since one of the corrupt employee has taken an independent decision by discrimination, the University should not be made responsible for the same and the said decision should not be made applicable to him. The words used in Annexure-S, is up-parliamentary in nature that too for the cadre of lecturer being ;well-qualified, and had he completed the Master in Visual Arts course, would have had an opportunity of getting promoted as reader in the subject in which he is taking classes to the students. Therefore, he submitted that, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts by imposing exemplary costs. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents for considerable length of time on 24th March, 2006 and today. After careful perusal and critical evaluation of the entire material available on record, and the rival contentions urged by learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to: Whether the petitioner has made out any case for granting the relief sought for by him or should he be permitted to prosecute his studies in the fourth semester for a period of another six days? After careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges on the face of the material made available by the respondents-University that, petitioner himself has made a request by way of an application/representation dated 9th September, 2004, requesting to extend the benefit to other lecturers/professors or outsiders like him to prosecute the Masters degree in Visual Arts as a special case. In pursuance of the representation given by petitioner dated 9th September, 2004, the matter was placed before the Apex body of the respondent-University, namely the Executive Committee of the respondent-University and the Executive Committee in its 86th meeting held on 10th September, 2004 resolved to consider the request of the petitioner as a special case by admitting him to Master of Visual Arts course, however subject to condition that, petitioner should pay double the fee fixed for insiders as per the copy of the resolution produced along with Annexure-R1. Further, it emerges on the material available on record, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for petitioner that, petitioner has paid double the fee i.e., at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester in respect of first, second and third semesters respectively and to that effect, he has also produced the receipts along with the writ petition. Further, it emerges on the material available on record, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for petitioner that, petitioner has paid double the fee i.e., at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester in respect of first, second and third semesters respectively and to that effect, he has also produced the receipts along with the writ petition. Further, it emerges on the material available that, the communication has been sent to the petitioner on 8th February, 2006 vide Annexure-N, requesting him to be present on 24th February, 2006 and pay Rs. 3,500/- towards fourth semester fees and collect the subject for dissertation/thesis and to fix the guide for the same. In the said communication, it has been referred as Rs. 3,500/- instead of Rs. 7,000/- by inadvertence and the said error has been rectified and thereafter another communication has been sent on 23rd February, 2006 vide Annexure-Q intimating him to pay Rs. 7,000/- towards admission for fourth semester and also telephonically communicated to appear before the University on 25th February, 2006 without fail. When petitioner failed to appear before the University, in order to provide one more opportunity, the University has sent another communication on 27th February, 2006 vide Annexure-R permitting the petitioner to pay the fee in respect of fourth semester with penalty of Rs. 50/- on or before 4th March, 2006 and to collect the marks-cards. Instead of paying the said fee, petitioner has sent a detailed reply dated 28th February, 2006 vide Annexure-S addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, first respondent herein. After careful perusal of the averments made in Annexure-S, it is astonishing to know the manner in which the petitioner has written the said letter and the same is highly unjustifiable. He being a highly qualified person, having a doctorate, the language employed is unfortunately in a very poor taste. He being a part of the academic system, has employed such words which ought not to have been referred by a person of his caliber. The language used by the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner cannot at all be appreciated at any cost inasmuch as he has gone to the extent of threatening the Vice-Chancellor of the University that, the University has compelled him to redress his grievance by filing a writ petition before the High Court or Human Rights Commission for collecting the double fee. It is significant to note here itself that, as per the application/representation dated 9th September, 2004 given by petitioner, the matter was placed before the Executive Committee of the respondent-University. The respondent-University in its Executive Committee meeting held on 10th September, 2004 under subject No. 86 has considered the request of the petitioner as a special case and permitted the petitioner to get himself admitted to Master of Visual Arts course subject to condition that, he should pay double the fee that is fixed for insiders and the said decision has been taken by the Apex body of the respondent-University. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved in respect of payment of double fees in respect of the aforesaid course, he could have assailed the correctness of the same. Without assailing the correctness of the said decision, having totally accepted the same by paying a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per semester in respect of first, second and third semesters respectively, now, at this juncture, it is not open for petitioner to come before this Court by suppressing the material facts as stated above and the same is impermissible. The said fees has been collected· from the petitioner by way of a resolution passed by the Executive Committee on the basis that, he comes outside the purview of the University and is not an insider of the respondent-University. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for respondent-University, the University has collected uniform fees in respect of students coming from outside and no discrimination as such has been made to petitioner alone. Therefore, I do not find any justification or good grounds to grant the relief sought for by petitioner nor has he any right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that, petitioner has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the material facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has gone to the extent of giving instructions to his Counsel that, there are no regulations as such for prosecuting the fourth semester of the Master of Visual Arts Course. He has gone to the extent of giving instructions to his Counsel that, there are no regulations as such for prosecuting the fourth semester of the Master of Visual Arts Course. But, in fact, as per the enclosure to respondent 1 produced by learned Counsel for respondent-University, Regulation 4.2 indicates Theory - Paper-I and various details have been mentioned under the said regulation and Regulation No. 4.3 indicates Theory Paper-II regarding preparation of dissertation/thesis consisting of various details and requirements for the same, including the stipulation that, a candidate should get his thesis corrected from the guide and submit the same is five sets within the completion of the fourth semester to the Head of the Department for final valuation. The petitioner having rich experience in academic field, being highly qualified and knowing fully well, has come up before this Court by making false statement intentionally and deliberately which can never be appreciated. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, the instant writ petition cannot be maintained and such persons are not entitled to seek any relief from the hands of this Court. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with a direction to petitioner to deposit the said cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) within two weeks from today to respondent-University. In case he fails to pay the said cost within the time stipulated above, it is very much open for the respondent-University to recover the said amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of any merits with costs.