Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 335 (GUJ)

Murlidhar B Ed College v. Vice Chancellor

2015-03-26

R.M.CHHAYA

body2015
JUDGMENT R.M. Chhaya, J. 1. Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Avinash R. Thacker, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent University to pay the amount of fees of Rs. 4,00,000/- of the year 2006-07 with interest at the prevailing rate; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent University to pay the interest on the amount of Rs. 12,15,000/- which had been withheld for a considerable period without any reason; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent University to pay the amount of fees which has been deposited by the petitioner Trust i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- forthwith;” 3. It may be noted that the matter came to be admitted vide order dated 12.5.2009, wherein this Court, on the basis of the report submitted, had passed the following order:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, Rule. By way of interim relief, the respondent University is directed to make payment of Rs. 2 lakhs which even according to the University is liable to be paid to the college, as stated by Mr. Hathi. Payment for the rest will be subject to the final outcome of this petition. The learned advocate Hathi states that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs will be paid on or before 20.5.2009. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lakhs is concerned, the University shall deposit a sum of RS.2 lakhs in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank earning maximum interest for a minimum term so as to see that in the event the petition is allowed the University is not burdened to pay interest from its own funds and on the other hand the petitioner is not deprived of interest on the amount which it is otherwise entitled to. The question of interest on the amount which the University has agreed to pay today which was payable at an early date, will be considered at the time of final hearing of this petition. The question of interest on the amount which the University has agreed to pay today which was payable at an early date, will be considered at the time of final hearing of this petition. The University shall honour the statement made by Mr. Hathi before this Court treating it as direction of this Court. A copy of this order be made available to Mr. Hathi for its onward communication for compliance.” 4. Considering the order dated 12.5.2009, the amount of Rs. 2 lacs has already been paid to the petitioner. The remaining amount of Rs. 2 lacs has been invested in a Fixed Deposit Receipt as per the order dated 12.5.2009. Mr. Thacker, learned advocate for the respondents has produced a photocopy of the Fixed Deposit Receipt dated 21.5.2009 which was to expire on 20.8.2009. Mr. Thacker, on instructions, states that the said Fixed Deposit is renewed from time to time, which has been lastly renewed till 16.2.2014. 5. Ms. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has produced a letter dated 23.2.2015 addressed by the Managing Trustee/Secretary of the petitioner-trust which reads as under:- “We hereby accord our consent and agree that if the Registrar, Saurashtra University, Rajkot pays us our remaining amount of Rs. 200000.00 Rs. two lacs together with the interest accrued upon that amount till the date, we have no objection to withdraw the case and we will be satisfied so far the current matter is concerned.” 6. In light of the aforesaid development during pendency of this petition, the learned advocates appearing for the parties do not invite any reasons for passing the order and hence, the respondents are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner after encashing the Fixed Deposit Receipt which is standing in Central Bank of India, Saurashtra University Campus, Munjka Branch, Rajkot to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of this judgment, as far as prayers prayed for in Paragraph 17(A) is concerned. 7. In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner does not claim the prayers prayed for in Paragraph 17(B). Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged.