Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 906 (MP)

Ku. Amrita Jain v. State of M. P.

2014-07-28

ALOK ARADHE, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners seek exemption from payment of tuition fee on the ground that the petitioners' parents are green card holders. The petitioners are students, who are pursuing and prosecuting their studies in the respondent no. 3 University, Rajeev Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya University. The petitioners seek benefits based on various grounds as are indicated in the writ petition. 2. Respondent no. 3 has filed detailed reply and has placed reliance on a circular issued by the State Government on 03­07­2009 to deny the benefit. However, it is also seen from the record that the similar objection raised by the respondent no. 2 based on the circular dated 03­07­2009 has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this court in 3 writ petitions bearing Satyam Pandey and Others Vs. University Institute of Technology, R.G.P.V., W.P. No. 4718 of 2010  so also Usha Misra and another Vs. University Institute of Technology, W.P. No. 11382 of 2009 and Ku. Swati Bhargava Vs. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 14949 of 2010. 3. In all these cases a detailed consolidated order has been passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court on 03­07­2012 and similar petitions allowed and the objection identical in nature raised based on the letter and communication dated 03­07­2009 has been rejected. 4. In view of the above, there is no reason as to why the petitioners be also not granted similar benefits. However, in the return and reply to the contentions of the respondents is that the respondents have filed Review Applications in all these cases which are pending and therefore, benefits cannot be granted for the present. 5. However, the records of R.P. No. 559 of 2013 and R.P. No. 560 of 2013 and R.P. No. 561 of 2013 are summoned by this court and on going through the records, it is seen that on 07­02­2014 all the review applications have been dismissed by the Bench. That being so, now there is no reason for denying the similar benefits to the petitioner as has been granted to the students similarly situated by virtue of an order passed in the case of Satyam Pandey (supra). The petitioners and other students are identically situated and similar objection raised by the respondents based on circular dated 03­07­2009 is already rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this court. 6. The petitioners and other students are identically situated and similar objection raised by the respondents based on circular dated 03­07­2009 is already rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this court. 6. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and the respondents are directed to grant exemption from payment of tuition fee to the petitioners for the year in question. If the tuition fee is already collected, the same be refunded to the petitioners within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. C.C. as per rules.