Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 734 (ALL)

YOGENDRA RAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-03-23

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—Heard Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Counsel for U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and others. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making the following prayers : “(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to refund the fee deposited by petitioner in different heads at the time of admission of his late son Vineet Kushwaha. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents pay the compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony caused by petitioner for illegally withholding the money deposited by petitioner in the respondents Institute for admission of his late son Vineet Kushwaha. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) to award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner.” It is inter alia, alleged in the Writ Petition that Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) had appeared in the State Entrance Examination 2006 (SEE U.P. T.U.-2006) for admission to the Engineering Colleges; and that Roll No. of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was 1381171. 3. It is, inter alia, further alleged that the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was allotted State Rank 26887, Category Rank 6684 in Mechanical Engineering Branch ,and the Registration of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was AL No. 1012727. 4. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that on 13.7.2006 the petitioner deposited Rs. 5000/- as initial fee and Rs. 500/- as Counselling fee at the time of registration. 5. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that on 15.7.2006, the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) reported before Counselling Authority and deposited Rs. 15000/- through Demand Draft No. 414229 , and at that time, the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was allotted, the Institute, namely, Modi Engineering College, Modi Nagar, in Mechanical Engineering Branch. 6. 15000/- through Demand Draft No. 414229 , and at that time, the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was allotted, the Institute, namely, Modi Engineering College, Modi Nagar, in Mechanical Engineering Branch. 6. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that on 24.7.2006, the second counselling of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was held, and at that time, the petitioner deposited Rs.500/- through Demand Draft No. 414380 issued by the State Bank of India. 7. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that on 25.7.2006, the Officer-Incharge of the Counselling Centre of the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad issued a letter to the Principal/Dean/Director/Registrar, United College of Engineering and Research , Allahabad informing that the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) had been allotted provisionally a seat in first year in the said Institute , and the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) was advised to report on 10.8.2006 for admission. 8. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that in pursuance of the letter dated 25.7.2006 issued by the Officer-Incharge of the Counselling Center, the petitioner, on 7.8.2006, deposited Rs. 48,950/- under various heads, as mentioned in paragraph No. 8 of the Writ Petition. 9. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that after getting admission , the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) fell seriously ill due to Liver Cancer, and as such, he could not attend the College for a single day. 10. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that information orally as well as in writing was given to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 regarding illness of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner). 11. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) underwent treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences , Lucknow during various periods, as detailed in paragraphs Nos. 10,11 and 12 of the Writ Petition. 12. 11. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) underwent treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences , Lucknow during various periods, as detailed in paragraphs Nos. 10,11 and 12 of the Writ Petition. 12. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that the disease of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) could not be controlled , and the condition of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) became critical, and it was impossible for him to attend the College , and there being no hope to cure the disease of the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner), the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent No. 3 on 11.10.2006 with a prayer to cancel the admission of his son, namely, the said Vineet Kushwaha and to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner. 13. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that on 12.10.2006, the petitioner gave another letter to the respondent No. 3 personally in this regard. 14. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that the said Vineet Kushwaha (late son of the petitioner) died on 28.10.2006. 15. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that the petitioner sent another letter dated 12.12.2006 to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 through Registered Post on 13.12.2006 with a prayer to make /direct for refund of the fee deposited by the petitioner for admission of his late son, namely, the said Vineet Kushwaha. 16. It is, inter alia, further alleged in the Writ Petition that in pursuance of the said letter dated 12.12.2006, the respondent No. 2 sent a letter on 28.12.2006 to the respondent No. 3 directing the latter to do the needful keeping in view the guidelines given in the Government Order dated 18.4.2006 and the Government Order dated 30.8.2006 annexed to the letter of the University dated 4.9.2006. 17. Copy of the said letter dated 28.12.2006 written by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 has been filed as Annexure No. 13 to the Writ Petition. 18. 17. Copy of the said letter dated 28.12.2006 written by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 has been filed as Annexure No. 13 to the Writ Petition. 18. A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, annexing thereto, copies of the aforementioned letter of the University dated 4.9.2006, the aforementioned Government Order dated 18.4.2006 and the aforementioned Government Order dated 30.8.2006 as Annexures Nos. S.A. No. 1, S.A. 2 and S.A. 3, respectively to the said Supplementary Affidavit. 19. Making allegations as narrated above, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking reliefs, as quoted above in the earlier part of this judgment. 20. I have heard Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow , and perused the record. 21. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the U.P. Technical University, Lucknow has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available to him under the Government Orders filed with the Supplementary Affidavit, and therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 22. I have considered the preliminary objection raised by Sri Neeraj Tiwari, and I am inclined to agree with the same. 23. A perusal of the Government Order dated 18.4.2006 shows that the same lays down guidelines in regard to the refund of fee to the students admitted in various Engineering /Technical Institutes. 24. Clause 6 of the said Government Order dated 18.4.2006 is as under : Þ¼6½ fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk fookn gksus ij Ádj.k lEcfU/kr laLFkk ds funskd@Á/kkukpk;Z] dqylfpo@Ákkld rFkk foRr fu;a=d@ofj"B foOrvf/kdkjh dh lfefr dks lUnfHkZr dj fn;k tkuk pkfg,] tks Nk= dks leqfpr volj nsdj viuk fu.kZ; dkj.kksa lfgr nsA lfefr dk fu.kZ; vfUre ,oa lEcfU/kr i{kksa ij ck?;dkjh gksxkA mDr fu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy dh lquokbZ dk vf/kdkj dqyifr] m0Á0 Ákfof/kd foofo|ky; dks gksxkAÞ A perusal of the above -quoted Clause 6 of the said Government Order shows that the dispute in regard to refund of fee to the students of various Engineering/Technical Institutes should be referred to a Committee consisting of Director/ Principal of the concerned Institute, Registrar/Administrator, and Finance Controller/Senior Finance Officer, and the said Committee is required to give a reasoned decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the students. 25. 25. The said Clause 6 further provides for Appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, U.P. Technical University against the said decision of the Committee. 26. It is, thus, evident that for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner raised in the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of approaching the Committee , as mentioned in the above-quoted Clause 6 of the said Government Order dated 18.4.2006. 27. In view of the availability of the aforementioned alternative remedy to the petitioner, and also in view of the factual controversy involved in the present case, I am of the opinion that it will be appropriate to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and to give liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy available to him in the said Clause 6 of the Government Order dated 18.4.2006. 28. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the petitioner is given liberty to pursue the alternative remedy available to him in the said Clause 6 of the Government Order dated 18.4.2006. 29. Accordingly, the petitioner may make a detailed Representation /Application, annexing thereto all the relevant documents, to the Vice-Chancellor, U.P. Technical University, Lucknow (respondent No. 1) within two months from today. Copy of the present Writ Petition as well as certified copy of this order will be filed along with the said Representation /Application. Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said Representation /Application, the Vice-Chancellor U.P. Technical University will constitute a Committee as contemplated in Clause 6 of the said Government Order dated 18.4.2006 , referred to above. 31. On receipt of the Representation /Application of the petitioner from the Vice-Chancellor, the Committee so constituted by the Vice-Chancellor will proceed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months of the receipt of the Representation/Application from the Vice-Chancellor, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 32. The Committee will pass a speaking order giving reasons for its decision. 33. I order accordingly. ————