Disposed

Jenifer Parvin. a v. The University Grand Commissioner (Ugc)

Madras HC18 Nov 2024WP(MD)/16608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an LLM student, alleged that the University failed to conduct examinations and refund fees despite a representation. The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within one week and return original academic certificates.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to consider the representation regarding fee refund within one week and return original academic certificates.

Jenifer Parvin. a Vs The University Grand Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

A.Jenifer Parvin

... Petitioner

The University Grand Commissioner (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶11

The Vice Chancellor, Prist University, Trichy - Thanjavur Highway Vallam, Thanjavur - 613 403, Thanjavur District.

¶12

The Registrar, Prist University, Trichy – Thanjavur Highway Vallam, Thanjavur - 613 403, Thanjavur District.

¶13

The Director Cum Dean, Prist University, Madurai Campus, Madurai - Sivagangai Road, Arasanoor, Sivagangai District.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶17

Srinivasan

¶18

6. Kalpana

¶19

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to issue suitable direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to refund the fees and other expenses paid by the petitioner i.e., considering petitioner representation, dated 07.06.2024 and consequently to take action as against respondents 2 to 6.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jeya Prakash For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendiran for Mr.Tilak Pasumbadiyar (R3) Ms.M.Kamali (R6) No Appearance (R2,R4,R5)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to issue suitable direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to refund the

¶23

fees and other expenses paid by the petitioner by considering the petitioner representation, dated 07.06.2024 and to take action as against respondents 2 to 6.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶27

2.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 2 to 6. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

3.The petitioner had joined in the two years course of LLM Regular Programme in PRIST University, Madurai campus during the academic year 2020-21. The said course ought to have been completed within the academic year 2022-23. She has also remitted semester tuition fees for each semester, totally a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- as paid by her. However, the claim of the petitioner is that even after the lapse of two years, the examination was not conducted by the respondent University. In view of the same, she had sent a representation to the respondents 2 to 4 on 07.06.2024. However, the same was not considered. Hence, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶29

4.It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶33

amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶34

5.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, this Court hereby direct the respondents 2 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.06.2024 and pass appropriate orders in the matter of refund of fees to the petitioner, within a period of one (1) week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent University is further directed to forthwith return the original academic certificates of the petitioner which are with them.

¶35

6.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

18.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PNM

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

4/6

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶40

¶41

The University Grand Commissioner (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

¶42

The Vice Chancellor, Prist University, Trichy - Thanjavur Highway Vallam, Thanjavur - 613 403, Thanjavur District.

¶43

The Registrar, Prist University, Trichy – Thanjavur Highway Vallam, Thanjavur - 613 403, Thanjavur District.

¶44

The Director Cum Dean, Prist University, Madurai Campus, Madurai - Sivagangai Road, Arasanoor, Sivagangai District.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

5/6

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶48

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶49

PNM

¶50

ORDER IN W.P.(MD).No.16608 of 2024

¶51

18.11.2024

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

6/6

Jenifer Parvin. a v. The University Grand Commissioner (Ugc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jenifer Parvin. a v. The University Grand Commissioner (Ugc)

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

Divya Bharathi R Vs The Regional Director

Vettaiselvam Vs The Regional Passport Officer

K.Chandrasekaran Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Russia Gunasingh Vs The Regional Manager

M.Balamurugan Vs the Executive Engineer

Harish Vs The Regional Passport Officer