“9. More importantly, admittedly respondent no.2 is a private educational institution getting no financial support either from the Government or from the university. Therefore, the institute has to meet its expenses only from the fees it charges from the students. If NOC is granted to the petitioner, there is a likelihood of one seat in the respondent no.2-Institute remaining vacant for as many as three years. There is no material to show that some other student is ready and willing to join respondent no.2-Institute, to occupy the seat that would be vacated in case the petitioner migrates to Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology. As stated in the counter affidavit of respondent no.2, the expenses of the institute for infrastructure required to maintain and run the institute is fixed. So is the number of teachers and employees working in the institute. Therefore, in case the seat presently occupied by the petitioner remained unfilled for three years, that would be to the financial detriment of respondent no.2-Institute, since it cannot reduce its expenditure on infrastructure, faculty or employees working in the institute. The petitioner before this Court has not come out with an offer to pay the remaining fees of the course to respondent no.2-Institute. Had such an offer been made by him, it would not have been possible for the respondent no.2Institute to take the plea of financial hardships in case the petitioner is allowed to migrate to another institute, thereby leaving one seat unfilled for three years.”
