Allowed

Mr. Surya Pratap Chaudhary v. the Registrar, Sckm'S Nmims

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2022WP/11961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a minor student, sought refund of unpaid admission fees under UGC guidelines related to the pandemic. The High Court held the petition maintainable against the deemed university as a public functionary and directed the refund of the outstanding balance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to refund balance sum of Rs. 2,46,000 within four weeks from receipt of order.

Mr. Surya Pratap Chaudhary Vs the Registrar, Sckm'S… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.11961 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MR. SURYA PRATAP CHAUDHARY AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, (MINOR), S/O LAVKUSH KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY [FATHER] AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN PROFESSOR LAVKUSH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR R/W J-2 PRAKASH CITY BAJPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR, DIST U S NAGAR, UTTARAKHAND, 244713.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

THE REGISTRAR ,SCKM'S NMIMS BENGALURU CAMPUS BANNERGHATA (MAIN CAMPUS, KALKER POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560083.

¶9

…RESPONDENT

¶10

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶11

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE ENTIRE ADMISSION FEE AMOUNT PAID BY THIS PETITIONER ALONG WITH 12 PERCENT OF INTEREST.

¶12

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶13

²

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to refund the entire admission fee paid by the petitioner together with interest and for other reliefs.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶17

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶18

The respondent having been served with the notice of this petition has remained unrepresented and has not contested this petition.

¶19

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent is 'deemed' University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [for short, 'UGC Act'] and is performing public function and guidelines, Notifications etc., issued under the same, the present petition seeking appropriate reliefs against the respondent-University is maintainable.

¶20

³

¶21

It is also submitted that the petitioner having

¶22

paid the entire admission fee of Rs.2,52,000/- on 25.08.2021, in view of the Guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission directing refund of any admission fee paid by the students on account of the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic, requested the respondent to cancel/withdraw the admission and sought refund of the entire admission fee paid by him. In response thereto, the respondent issued e-mail on 17.12.2021 to the petitioner confirming cancellation of the admission and stating that the petitioner would be entitled to refund within a period of twenty working days. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid UGC Guidelines and e-mail dated 17.12.2021 admitting and confirming that the petitioner would be entitled to the refund of the entire admission fee. The respondent has refunded only a sum of Rs.6,000/- out of the total sum of Rs.2,52,000/- and since the representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondent seeking refund of the balance sum of Rs.2,46,000/- paid by him to the respondent has not been

¶23

⁴

¶24

complied with by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶25

As stated supra, the respondent having

¶26

received notice of the present petition has not chosen to contest the same and has remained unrepresented.

¶27

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of section 2[f] of the UGC Act read with the Guidelines and Notifications coupled with the fact that the respondent which is a 'deemed' University is performing a public function, I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petition against the respondent-University is maintainable.

¶28

Insofar as the refund of the admission fee paid by the petitioner to the respondent is concerned, the material on record discloses that the petitioner has undisputedly paid the aforesaid sum of Rs.2,52,000/- to the respondent through ICICI Bank Limited on 25.08.2021 and request of the petitioner to cancel the admission and refund the entire amount has been acceded to by the respondent

¶29

⁵

¶30

who issued e-mail dated 17.12.2021 confirming the same and consequently the inaction on the part of the respondent in refunding the entire amount, warrants interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶31

In the result, the petition is hereby allowed.

¶32

The respondent is hereby directed to refund the balance sum of Rs.2,46,000/- paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶33

order.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

AN/-

Mr. Surya Pratap Chaudhary v. the Registrar, Sckm'S Nmims

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Surya Pratap Chaudhary v. the Registrar, Sckm'S Nmims

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawaz Khan S.I. Vs Visvesvaraya Technological University

Subash Menon Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6

Goutham Stores Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Dinesh Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka

Dheeraj Acharya Y Vs State of Karnataka

Jayasimha Vs State of Karnataka