D A UPADHYA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR KANNADA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant case, petitioner has sought to declare the action on the. part of respondents in demanding double fees to the course called "master of Visual Arts" as per communication dated 23rd February, 2006 vide Annexure-Q issued by third respondent as illegal and void and to issue a direction, directing the respondents, restricting them from demanding double fees from the petitioner and permit him to complete the course by paying single fee on par with others by considering the representing made by the petitioner vide Annexure-S, dated 28th February, 2006. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to adjust the additional amount towards payment of admission fees and examination fees for the 4th semester in respect of master of Visual Arts course and to refund the balance amount along with interest to the petitioner.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that, petitioner has taken admission in the respondents-Kannada University (University' for short) in respect of 'master of Visual Arts' for the academic year 2004-05 which consists of four semesters. Accordingly, he has been admitted to the said course and petitioner has paid the necessary fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester for first, second and third semesters respectively. When things stood thus and when petitioner was supposed to take admission for the last and final fourth semester, he received a communication from the university dated 8th February, 2006 vide Annexure-N directing him to be personally present before the University on 24th February, 2006 and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and also to take further instructions from the University. Immediately after the receipt of the said communication vide Annexure-N, petitioner has replied to the said communication on 15th February, 2006 vide annexure-P, stating that, he has paid in all an excess fee of Rs. 10,500/- at the rate of Rs. 3,500/per semester and therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,500/- towards fourth semester may be deducted/adjusted and balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- may please be returned/refunded to him. Further, he has also stated that, he would prepare the dissertation/thesis independently and he need not have to come to the University on 24th February, 2006. The respondents, after realising the error that had crept in while mentioning the amount in the communication sent to petitioner, i. e. , instead of mentioning Rs. 7,000/- it was mentioned as Rs. 3,500/- by inadvertence vide annexure-N, has issued another communication dated 23rd February, 2006 vide Annexure-Q, stating that, the amount mentioned as Rs. 3,500/- was in respect of Lecturers who are serving inside the University and for outsiders, the fee fixed is double the fee that is fixed for insiders, i. e. , Rs. 7,000/ -. Further, the authority informed the petitioner to get admitted to fourth semester of Master of Visual Arts by paying a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and also communicated the petitioner telephonically. The petitioner instead of paying the said amount, has sent a detailed reply on 28th february, 2006, vide Annexure-S furnishing all the details and also bringing to the notice of the university that, the University has made discrimination in collecting the fee inasmuch as they have demanded a sum of Rs. 3,500/- for other candidates and from him they have demanded a sum of Rs. 7,000/ -. Since the University did not permit the petitioner to prosecute his fourth semester in Master of Visual Arts course and did not adjust the fee at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per semester as has been done in respect of other candidates who are insiders, as he has already paid a sum of Rs. 10,500/- in excess in respect of first, second and third semesters at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate directions, as referred above.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the university has collected the fee at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per semester by making discrimination and the same is one without any jurisdiction. He submitted that, preventing the petitioner from attending the classes even when it is brought to the notice of the authorities that, he has been discriminated from other students and has to be treated on par with other students who are prosecuting their studies, is highly discriminatory. Hence, in view of the discrimination made by the University, petitioner was constrained to give a detailed reply vide Annexure-S. Further, he vehemently submitted that, there is no compulsion that, petitioner should attend the classes commencing during March 2006 which would conclude on 2nd of April, 2006. It is also the case of petitioner that, the course taken up by petitioner does not require the candidates to attend the classes compulsorily nor the University has produced any specific regulation to the effect that, petitioner should regularly and compulsorily attend the classes conducted by the University. Further, so far as the submission of dissertation/thesis is concerned, he submitted that, still he has time to submit the same as the fourth semester is not yet over. Therefore, he submitted that, still he has six days at his disposal and he may be permitted to attend the classes and to appear for the examination. He further submitted that, the stand taken by University is not justifiable nor the university is entitled to collect double fees only from petitioner unlike other candidates and the university is liable to refund the excess fee paid by petitioner and collected by it for previous three semesters.