Dismissed

Need Foundation v. UOI and Ors.

Delhi HC4 Apr 2016W.P.(C)/2651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a franchisee seeking re-admission and examinations for students across India. The court held the matter was not a res integra, relying on Prof. Yashpal regarding state legislative competence, and rejected the petition as it was filed by a franchisee rather than a student.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and application stand dismissed. No interim order was passed.

Need Foundation Vs UOI and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2651/2016 & CM APPL. 11229/2016

¶4

NEED FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Arora, Advocate. versus

¶5

UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Bharati Raju, Advocate with
Ms. Nidhi Parashar, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Manoj Ranjan sinha, Advocate with
Mr. Avanish Rathi and Ms. Arpita,
Advocate for respondent No.2.
% Date of Decision : 4 th April, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T

¶6

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶7

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶8

“a) ISSUE a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of Mandamus or any other nature directing the Respondents to grant re-admission/re-registration to the existing students enrolled with Respondent No.3 university in various courses and conduct semester examination for the Sessions 2016-17 in the time bound manner;

¶9

W.P.(C) 2651/2016

¶10

Page 1 of 4

¶11

b) ISSUE a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of Mandamus or any other nature directing the Respondents to extend time for re-admission/re-registration of existing students as well as examination for session 2016-17;

¶12

c) ISSUE a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of Mandamus or any other nature directing the Respondent No.2 to direct Respondent No.3 university to complete course of the existing students as per rules and regulations in time bound manner;

¶13

d) Pass any other further order or orders, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

¶14

It has been averred in the petition that on 14^th June, 2010, petitionerSociety entered into a memorandum of understanding with respondent No.3University for providing various courses to students across India through distance mode, regular mode and e-learning mode. According to the petitioner, it was notified as a collaborative institution and it was agreed between the parties that petitioner will establish various study centres throughout the India.

¶15

It is stated that respondent No.3-University vide notifications dated 01^st July, 2015 and 05^th September, 2015 decided to withdraw all the programmes offered by collaborative institutions outside the State of Karnataka. The notifications further directed collaborative institutions not to take any fresh admissions. Vide Notification dated 05^th March, 2016, respondent No.3-University terminated memorandum of understanding with all the collaborated institutions.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner-society in accordance with Notification dated 05^th September, 2015 did not take any

¶17

W.P.(C) 2651/2016

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

fresh admissions in any course. He, however, states that respondent No.3University is not accepting admission and re-registration fee of the existing students in Semester Modes in various courses and not conducting examination.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner-Society has made a representation to the respondent No.3-University, but no action has been taken till date. He also relies upon the interim orders passed by the Madras High Court as well as Kerala High Court by virtue of which students have been allowed to sit in the examination, but their results have been directed not to be declared.

¶21

In the opinion of this Court, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra . The Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 420 has clearly held that the State Legislature can only make laws for its own State and not for the whole of India. The relevant portion of Supreme Court judgment in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶22

“60........In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a university to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legislature”

¶23

This Court is of the view that paragraph 60 of Prof. Yashpal and Anr. (supra) clearly stipulates that the law passed by the State of Karnataka does not have any extra territorial operation.

¶24

W.P.(C) 2651/2016

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

It is surprising that even though the Supreme Court’s aforesaid judgment was passed in 2005, yet the State of Karnataka as well as the petitioner have been admitting students till 2015.

¶27

Since the present writ petition has been filed only by a franchisee and not by student, this Court is of the view that no interim order with regard to appearance in examination can be passed.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, present writ petition and application stand dismissed.

¶29

MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 04, 2016
js

¶30

W.P.(C) 2651/2016

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Need Foundation v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Need Foundation v. UOI and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs Uoi(Delhi Milk Scheme) & Ors.

Yamuna Prasad and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT (Delhi) and Ors.

Mr a and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Disha Securities and Manpower Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Designated Authority (Vces) Office of Commissioner of Servic

Allama Iqbal Unani Medical College & Hospital & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

O.S.Bajpai Vs the Administrator Lt.Governor

Col Manmohan Sood Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yamuna Prasad and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT (Delhi) and Ors.

Mr a and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council Vs M/S Advanced Ceramics Pvt. Ld & Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs Karnakaka State Open University & Anr.

Ireo Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.