Dismissed

Loyola Institute of Teacher v. the Pondicherry University

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP/22436/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an enhancement of the University Development Fund for affiliated colleges. It held that the enhancement was a valid policy decision taken earlier without merit for judicial interference despite the delay.处置号为dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition dismissed.

Loyola Institute of Teacher Vs the Pondicherry… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03-01-2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

WP No.22436 of 2009 And MP No.2 of 2009

¶6

Loyola Institute of Teacher Education (LITE) Managed by Loyola Education, Animation and Social Trust (LEAST) Represented, by its Correspondent, Mr.Thomas Pothakamuri, Loyola Garden, Koodappakkam Village, Vazhudhavoor, Pondicherry PIN: 605 502.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Pondicherry University, Represented by its Registrar, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 014.

¶10

The Deputy Registrar (Acad-II), Pondicherry University,

¶11

R.Venkataraman Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 014.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the impugned order issued by the second respondent in Ref.No.PU/Aca-7/2009-10/673, dated 29.06.2009 in so far as the demand for payment of University Development Fund at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student from the petitioner-Institution is concerned and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji

¶15

For Respondents : Ms.A.V.Bharathi

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the circular issued by the second respondentPondicherry University on 29.06.2009.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

2. The impugned proceedings is a Policy Circular No.18, which provides guidelines for admission to various Courses.

¶20

3. The affiliated Colleges are requested to strictly adhere to the guidelines issued. The petitioner is challenging the enhancement of University Development Fund from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/-.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-University has brought to the notice of this Court that the enhancement was made in the year 2004 by way of policy decision by the University and the impugned policy circular is a routine circular issued during every academic year. The University is collecting the enhancement development fund from the year 2004 onwards. Thus, the writ petition itself was filed after a lapse of about five years from the policy decision, which was taken and which was made known to the petitioner also.

¶22

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the periodical enhancement of University Development Fund is the policy decision to be taken and in the present case, the Development Fund of Rs.25/- was in force for several years. Thus, the University had taken a policy decision to enhance the said amount i.e., from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/- in the year 2004 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 and the said policy decision taken by the University cannot be said to be perverse.

¶23

6. This apart, the decision taken in the year 2004 was challenged in the year 2009 and the writ petition has been filed challenging the routine circular issued during academic years. The present writ petition is pending for the past about 12 years. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,000/- prescribed in the year 2004 towards University Development Fund need not be interfered with by this Court after this length of time, as the said amount cannot be construed as unreasonable.

¶24

7. Further, it is a policy decision taken and the power of judicial review to interfere with such policy decisions are limited. Unless such policy decisions are unconstitutional, the Courts need not interfere with the policy decision taken by the University.

¶25

8. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the policy decision of enhancing the University Development Fund from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/- in the year 2004, which was issued by way of routine circular in every academic years and therefore, the writ petition deserves no merit consideration.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

Svn

¶33

¶34

The Registrar, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 014.

¶35

The Deputy Registrar (Acad-II), Pondicherry University,

¶36

R.Venkataraman Nagar, Pondicherry – 605 014.

¶37

+1cc to Ms.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate, S.R.No.114

¶38

WP 22436 of 2009

¶39

RGN(CO) CT 11/02/2022

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Loyola Institute of Teacher v. the Pondicherry University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loyola Institute of Teacher v. the Pondicherry University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Kanishk Steel Industrial Vs The Chairman and Managing

C.Elamaran Vs the District Collector

Plaza Maintenance and Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Mohammed Jamaludin Vs the Chairman

Cavinkare Private Limited Vs Chairman/Managing Director

Sankari Vs The Chairman