Anubhav Bansal Vs Hp University

¶1

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No. 50 of 2016 Reserved on: 7.11.2024 Date of Decision: 13.11.2024

¶4

Anubhav Bansal ...Appellant. Versus H.P. University and others ...Respondents.

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶8

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2015, vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed in the writ petition for convenience).

¶9

Briefly stated, the petitioner filed a writ petition before

¶10

this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to

¶11

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

1

2

2024:HHC:11230-DB

release/refund the fee deposited by him along with interest. It was asserted that the petitioner sought admission to a B.A.LL.B course in respondent No.2-Institute afÏliated with respondent No.1University. He was granted admission by respondent No.2 and asked to deposit the fee. He deposited ₹32,900/- on 22.6.2022 vide receipt (Annexure P-1). Petitioner had also sought admission to other Universities and was granted admission by Punjab University, Regional Centre, Ludhiana, Punjab. The petitioner surrendered his seat and requested respondent No.2 to refund the fee as per the procedure vide application dated 25.7.2012 (Annexure P-2). He also sent an e-mail and a letter dated 28.8.2012. The petitioner was assured that his fee would be refunded after the completion of the formalities; however, the fee was not refunded. He sent a request letter dated 16.6.2013 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 12.8.2013 (Annexure P-5) declining to refund the fee. The denial of the refund of the fee is contrary to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission(UGC). Hence, the petition.

¶16

The petition was opposed by filing a reply by respondents No.1 and 2 making preliminary submissions regarding the petitioner having not approached the Court with clean hands

¶17

3

¶18

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶19

and the petition suffering from delay and latches. It was asserted that the petitioner never applied for a refund of fees on 25.7.2012. He applied for a refund of the application and tuition fee on 28.8.2012, when the last date of admission had lapsed. Consequently, the seat surrendered by the petitioner could not be filled and the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the admission fee. He filed the present petition after the lapse of one year and ten months without any explanation. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶20

A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and afÏrming those of the petition was filed.

¶21

The writ court held that respondents could not fill the seat vacated by the petitioner and the guidelines issued by the UGC do not apply to the present case. The petitioner is only entitled to a refund of ₹1,000/- as per the guidelines. The prospectus also mentioned that the fee once deposited would not be refunded under any circumstances and this condition was not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was ordered to be dismissed.

¶22

Being aggrieved from the judgment, the petitioner, filed the present appeal asserting that respondent No.2 had acted arbitrarily by not refunding the fee as per the guidelines issued by

¶23

4

¶24

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶25

UGC. The petitioner applied for a refund on 25.7.2012 after Punjab University released the merit list on 19.7.2012. The first counselling was conducted on 23.7.2012 and 24.7.2012. The petitioner assessed his position and applied for a refund on 25.7.2012. The petitioner also got admission to the Institution of Law and Management, Gurgaon. The institute refunded the fee deposited by the petitioner. The writ petition was wrongly dismissed. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to refund the fee to the petitioner.

¶26

We have heard Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶27

Mr Mukul Sood, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for the refund of the fee on 24.7.2012 well before the last date of admission and he is entitled to the refund of the fee as per the Rules. The respondents acted arbitrarily by declining to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner. He prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to refund the fee deposited by the petitioner.

¶28

5

¶29

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶30

Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the refund of the fee was rightly denied to the petitioner as the seat vacated by him could not be filled. The petitioner never applied for the refund of the admission fee vide letter dated 25.7.2012. He applied after the last date of admission was over. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶31

Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondents No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 has nothing to do with it; hence, he prayed that an appropriate order be passed.

¶32

We have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶33

The petitioner stated in his rejoinder that the seat was duly surrendered on 25.7.2012 and it was for the respondents to fill the seat as per the procedure. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the non-filling of the seat by respondents. These pleas show that the version of the respondents no. 1 & 2 that the seat vacated by the petitioner could not be filled has not been specifically denied by the petitioner and is deemed to be accepted. The notice

¶34

6

¶35

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶36

dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P-6) relied upon by the petitioner reads as under:-

¶37

“3. The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students/candidates. In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the start of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution/University to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.”

¶38

It is apparent from this notice that the student is entitled to the refund of the fee if the seat has been filled by another candidate before the last date of admission; thus, the burden is

¶39

upon the student seeking the refund of the fee to establish on record that the seat vacated by him was filled by another student before the last date of admission. Since in the present case, it is not disputed that the seat was not filled, therefore, the notice issued by UGC will not apply to the present case.

¶40

Petitioner asserted that he had sent a letter dated

¶41

25.7.2012 (Annexure P-2) seeking a refund of the admission fee.

¶42

7

¶43

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶44

Respondents denied the receipt of any such letter. The material on record makes it highly doubtful that the letter dated 25.7.2012 was sent by the petitioner because he had failed to make any reference to this letter in his subsequent letter dated 28.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). He sent another letter dated 16.6.2013 in which he specifically stated that he had made a request vide letters dated 28.8.2012 and 16.11.2012. The fact that the reference was made to the letters dated 28.8.2012 and 16.11.2012 in the body of the letter shows that the petitioner is in the habit of referring to earlier letters in the subsequent communications. The absence of the letter dated 25.7.2012 in the letter dated 28.8.2012 will, therefore, assume significance and will make it highly doubtful that the petitioner sent this letter to respondents no. 1 & 2.

¶45

The respondents mentioned in their reply that the petitioner informed respondents about the surrender of the seat on 28.8.2012 after getting admission to Punjab University on 27.8.2012. Significantly, the petitioner had not placed on record the letter issued by Punjab University to him regarding the allotment of the seats. He only relied upon the printout taken from Indiatashan (Annexure P-7) to show the various dates of admissions etc. He has not even filed the printout taken from the ofÏcial website of Punjab

¶46

8

¶47

2024:HHC:11230-DB

¶48

University. The letter written by Punjab University regarding the allotment was the best evidence to show the petitioner’s date of admission and in the absence of the same, the plea of the petitioner that he had surrendered the seat on 25.7.2012 cannot be accepted.

¶49

Therefore, it was not established by the material placed on record that the petitioner had surrendered the seat before the last date of admission and his claim for the refund of the fee deposited by him was rightly denied.

¶50

17. No other point was urged.

¶51

In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶52

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶53

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶54

13^th November, 2024 (Chander)

Anubhav Bansal v. Hp University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anubhav Bansal v. Hp University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Jeet Ram

Bhavna Thakur Vs Mukesh Kumar

Amit Vs State of Hp

State Vs Suresh Kumar

State of Hp and Others Vs Shakuntla Sharma

State Vs Sarvsheel Mago