Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 49 (JHR)

Maglawati Sewa Sadan v. State of Jharkhand

2021-01-13

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA

body2021
ORDER : Harish Chandra Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the respondent University, as also learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education. 2. This writ application was filed initially challenging the letters as contained in Annexures 2 and 2/1 of the writ application, whereby the proposals for establishing two new colleges, namely, Awadh Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Jamshedpur, and Awadh College of Architecture, Jamshedpur, were rejected by the respondent All India Council for Technical Education. 3. During the pendency of this writ application, an interlocutory application has been filed wherein the prayer has been made for refund of the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was deposited with the All India Council for Technical Education, for inspection of the colleges. It is stated in the interlocutory application that the inspection of the colleges was never done. However, it is not stated in the interlocutory application that any prayer made by the petitioner for refund of the said amount had been rejected by the respondent All India Council for Technical Education. 4. The filing of this interlocutory application clearly shows that the petitioner is no longer interested in the establishment of the aforesaid two colleges. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for refund of the amount deposited to the All India Council for Technical Education. 6. By order dated 16.01.2020, at the prayer of learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education, four weeks' time was allowed to the said respondent for filing counter-affidavit to the interlocutory application. The counter-affidavit was not filed and again by order dated 14.02.2020 further four weeks' time was allowed to the learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education for filing the counter-affidavit. 7. We are now in the month of January, 2021, but no counter- affidavit has yet been filed by the respondent All India Council for Technical Education against the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. Today also learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education prays for further time for filing the counter affidavit. The prayer is hereby, rejected. 8. Today also learned counsel for the All India Council for Technical Education prays for further time for filing the counter affidavit. The prayer is hereby, rejected. 8. It goes without saying that if the money has been deposited by the petitioner for inspection of the colleges and the inspection of the colleges have not been done, the petitioner would be entitled for refund of the said money. However, there appears to be no application by the petitioner before the All India Council for Technical Education for refund of the said money. 9. Since the petitioner is no more interested in the establishment of the colleges, this writ application has become infructuous. 10. The petitioner may make representation before the All India Council for Technical Education for refund of the money deposited by the petitioner, and if no inspection of the colleges has been done and no steps has been taken by the respondent All India Council for Technical Education pursuant to the money deposited by the petitioner, the money shall be refunded back to the petitioner without any further delay. The prayer made by the petitioner for refund of the money before the All India Council for Technical Education, if any, must be responded with as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of making the prayer for refund. 11. With this observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of. The Interlocutory Application also stands disposed of.