Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 338 (UTT)

Shalini Singh v. Union of India

2016-07-14

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 4 and 5 to forthwith adjust the excess tuition fee of Rs. 79,500/- realized by respondent nos. 4 and 5 at the time of admission of petitioners on 31.10.2014 and may further be pleased to direct the respondents to realize tuition fee @ Rs. 80,500/- per annum as tuition fee for the entire duration of their BAMS Course (i.e. four years and six months) as has been reflected in the Brochure (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 4 and 5 to permit the petitioners to continue their studies at the respondent no. 4 Institute in the BAMS Course without demanding any excessive fee @ Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum during the pendency of present petition and to realize tuition fee @ Rs. 80,500/- per annum as was reflected in the Brochure (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). 2. Vide order dated 30.10.2014, in Writ Petition no. 2111 (M/S) of 2014, Mudit Chauhan vs Union of India and others, and other connected writ petitions, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “the question as to whether medical college in question can be granted permission to grant admission in subsequent academic sessions through the National Level Competitive Examination is the subject matter of WPMS no. 2065 of 2014 and can be suitably dealt with in that writ petition. Therefore, all the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 are commanded to grant admission to the petitioners in BAMS course forthwith on deposit of the prescribed fee by the petitioners subject to the satisfaction of the Authorities that candidates are otherwise found eligible in accordance with prevailing law / Rules.” 3. Having obtained admission in the respondent no. 4 Institute, with the intervention of the Court, now by means of present writ petition, the petitioners challenge what has been indicated in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners ‘prescribed fee’ would mean the fee prescribed as on the date of admission. Having obtained admission in the respondent no. 4 Institute, with the intervention of the Court, now by means of present writ petition, the petitioners challenge what has been indicated in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioners ‘prescribed fee’ would mean the fee prescribed as on the date of admission. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Fee Regulatory Committee has not finalized the rates prescribed by the Government and, therefore, tentative fee as prescribed by the Government is not applicable in their case. 5. In order to find out, as to what will be the prescribed fee, the Court has to advert to Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is ‘Information Brochure and Application Form’ for Common Pre-medical Entrance Examination – 2014 (Uttarakhand)’. Internal page no. 8 of such brochure provides the fee structure as follows: “TUITION FEES: Rs. 80,500/- P.A. (Subject to change as per Government Directions) (Mess & Hostel facility separate).” 6. In order to find out what are the Government directions in respect of fee structure, the Court has to advert to Annexure 7 to the counter affidavit, which indicates the fee structure as below: Sl. No. Name of Course Present Tuition fee Revised fee 1 2 3 4 1 B.A.M.S. Rs. 80,000 per annum + Hostel fee 18,000 per annum Rs. 2,15,000/- per annum The note to the Government Order says that such revised fee shall be subject to the final orders of Fee Regulatory Committee (respondent no. 6). 7. The question before this Court is – is it open to the petitioners to say that they will not deposit the fee as prescribed by the Government vide Government Order dated 14.10.2015? The ancillary question to the first question is – is it open to the petitioners to say that till the fee structure is not finalized by Fee Regulatory Committee, they will not deposit the revised fee as provided in Government Order dated 14.10.2015? 8. The reply to the aforesaid question is – an emphatic ‘NO’, in the considered opinion of this Court. 9. It is not open to the petitioners to say that they will not comply with Government Order dated 14.10.2015 till a final decision is taken by Fee Regulatory Committee on the same. What for the Government Order has been issue by the Government in this respect, then? 9. It is not open to the petitioners to say that they will not comply with Government Order dated 14.10.2015 till a final decision is taken by Fee Regulatory Committee on the same. What for the Government Order has been issue by the Government in this respect, then? The Government Order is meant to be followed by those students, who are covered by said Government Order. Merely because the Fee Regulatory Committee will take time to take a final decision in the matter, the Government Order cannot be put on hold. Note 2 of the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 makes it amply clear that the authorities concerned shall make an adjustment in the fee subject to the final decision to be taken by the Fee Regulatory Committee. The word adjustment means that if, finally, the Fee Regulatory Committee decides that the fee should be enhanced, then, in that case further enhanced fee shall be realized from the students and if the Fee Regulatory Committee decides that the fee should be reduced, then the difference of the fee which has been realized from the students and fee thus fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be refunded to the students (petitioners herein). The language of the Government Order is absolutely clear. Any Government Order is meant to be followed and is not to be distorted by anybody, much less, the petitioners on their whims, caprices and fancies. Yes, Government Order may be quashed by the Court, if the same is discriminatory or is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Neither any challenge is thrown to the Government Order in this writ petition, nor does the Court finds any prima facie case for interference in the said Government Order. 10. The petitioners probably are under misconception that once they have been granted admission in the respondent no. 4 Institute with the intervention of the Court, therefore, the Court will again intervene in the matter of fee structure also. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed. 11. Writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. [Interim relief application no. 1098 of 2016 as well as urgency application no. 3213 of 2016 both stands disposed of.]