Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 346 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. ISHA NAND

2006-11-10

A.K.GOEL, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, SAROJ SHARMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Arun Kumar Goel J:- By means of this order we propose to dispose of all these appeals as common questions of law an fact are involved in all these cases. During the pendency of the 25 complaints before the District Forum below, all were ordered to be consolidated, vide order dated 7.5.2003, passed in Complaint No. 01/2003 i.e. Isha Nand Vs. State of H.P. and others. This order for ready reference is extracted herein below:- "7.5.2003. Present: Mr. Manish Kishore, vice for the comp. Mr. AS Shah, Adv. For OP No.4. Mr. Lekh Ram has appeared for the OP No.3. None for the OP No.5 hence exparte despite service. Ops No.1 & 2 not present. It is stated that these complaints No. 1/03 to complaint No.24/03 pertains to the same cause of action and those be consolidated. Request is allowed and all these complaints are ordered to be consolidated with complaint No.1/2003 titled as Smt. Isha Anand Vs. State. Let Fresh notice to the Ops No.1 & 2 be issued now again for 27.06.03. Sd/- President Sd/- . Sd/- Member Member" 2. In the complaints filed by private respondent complainants before us, the appellants, Himachal Pradesh University, The Administrator IITT Kala Aamb, Himachal Pradesh and Ms. Rama Sinha ME Ex- Chairperson of IITT Kala Amb, were the opposite parties. Another fact that needs to be mentioned before proceeding further in these cases is that, after consolidation, replies were filed by the opposite parties in Complaint No.1/2003, and were treated and real as such in all other complaints. Pursuant to the advertisement Annexure R-1 (its copy is at page-25 of the complaint file alongwith the reply of the appellants), issued by appellant No.2 in obedience to the Direction of Honble High Court of Delhi, he issued admission notice inviting applications for admission to second year of Year B-Tech Degree courses in the discipline of Information Technology. He had further stated in this notice that, this was as per order of the Honble High Court of Delhi. It was also mentioned in this advertisement itself that seats to be filed in by lateral entry and migration in second year of engineering were subject to the decision of the Honble Court. Thus it manifestly clear that Annexure R-1 was not issued by appellant No.2 of his own but under the court order. 3. It was also mentioned in this advertisement itself that seats to be filed in by lateral entry and migration in second year of engineering were subject to the decision of the Honble Court. Thus it manifestly clear that Annexure R-1 was not issued by appellant No.2 of his own but under the court order. 3. At the time of hearing it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that unless the respondent college was firstly approved by the All India Council for technical Education for the IT course during the relevant academic session i.e. 2000-01 and also at the same time, it was affiliated for this course to Himachal Pradesh University, students could not have been admitted. 4. What was the reason for the respondent college to have approached the Honble Delhi High Court seeking directions, in case if it fulfilled both the abovementioned conditions? Nothing is placed on record by it, or Mrs. Rama Sinha to establish that it was approved for the aforesaid course by All India Council for Technical Education and at the same time was affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University. Further corollary to this is, that it was only when it fulfilled neither of these conditions that, it approached the Honble Delhi High Court, when interim directions were issued which resulted in issuance of Annexure R-1. After conclusion, the District forum below allowed the complaint in each case granting following relief in favour of all the private respondents-complainants in these appeals:- "9. Now coming to the quantum of compensation to which the complainant is entitled to. As a equal of the above, we are of the affirmed view that the complainant is entitled to refund of the fee amount which remains unrefunded till date by the OP No.5 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of deposit with the college, till actual payment is made. Apart from this, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as the financial loss suffered for one and half year computing the same at the rate of 10,000/- per month. The complainant is further held entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages for the mental torture and harassment suffered and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 1,80,000/- as the financial loss suffered for one and half year computing the same at the rate of 10,000/- per month. The complainant is further held entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as damages for the mental torture and harassment suffered and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. We accordingly direct the OP No.5 to refund the unrefunded amount of fees to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit with the college, till actual payment is made. So far as the financial loss, damages and cost of litigation as ordered supra, are concerned half of the same shall be bom by the Ops No.1 and 3 and the remaining hal... the OP No.5. This order be complied with by the Ops No. 1,3 & 5 within a period of i.....e month form the date of receipt of copy of this order." 5. Mr. Verma learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, it is not the case of any of parties that admission notice was issued by appellant No.2 of his own. Even this fact is otherwise clearly made out as well as established from the contents of this Annexure R-1. In these circumstances, we are of the view that so far appellants are concerned, they did nothing so as to hold them liable for payment of compensation. 6. During the course of hearing it was again not disputed on behalf of the parties that appellants also approached the Honble supreme Court against the order pursuant to which Annexure R-1 was issued, but the petition was dismissed. This in our opinion further establishes the bona-fides on the part of the appellants that they did whatever was possible to protect the interest of the private respondents-complainants, but were unsuccessful. In these circumstances, we feel that both of them cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation nor the private respondents-complainants had any cause of action against them i.e. the appellants. Reason being that if the appellant No.2 did not carry out the order of the Honble Delhi High Court, then he would have intentionally disobeyed the same and exposed himself for action of disobeying the court order. And after he had obeyed the same, appellants are being now made to pay the compensation as is evident from the above extracted paragraph from the impugned order. 7. And after he had obeyed the same, appellants are being now made to pay the compensation as is evident from the above extracted paragraph from the impugned order. 7. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that it was for the college and its management, including Mrs. Rama Sinha to have prima facie established that it was both approved as well as affiliated as noticed hereinabove for the course in question during the academic session 2000-01, which they failed to establish in the proceeding before the District Forum below and nothing could be pointed out from record or even otherwise during the course of hearing of these appeals by their learned counsel. As such we are of the view that, appellants are not liable for payment of any compensation as directed in the impugned order, therefore that part of the impugned order in all these appeals which holds them liable for payment of compensation, harassment charges, costs and interest etc. is hereby quashed and set aside, thereby exonerating both of them of the liability fastened upon them by the District Forum below. However, keeping in view the fact that privates respondents-complainants in these appeals are students, appellants are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal as costs to each one of the private respondents-complainants. 8. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion while allowing all these appeals of the appellants, it is ordered that so far impugned order holds them liable for the payment of compensation, interest, costs besides compensation for harassment etc. is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is however, clarified that so far liability for payment of amount against the college as well as Mrs. Rama Sinha are concerned, it has been dealt with in Appeal No. 170/2006 and other connected 24 appeals disposed of today holding them liable for payment of the amount in terms of the said decision. However, in the peculiar fact of these appeals, appellants are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the private respondent-complainant as costs all these appeals. Office is directed to place authenticated copy of this order on the files of Appeal Nos. 137/2006 to 160/2006. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith in all the appeals. Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.