CHHATTISGARH KALYAN SAMITI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or other writ/ direction to respondents to pay an amount of Rs.8,71,827/- being reimbursement to the extent of 50 per cent of the tuition fee and laboratory fee to the petitioner- institution. Petitioners have also prayed for payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the unpaid balance due from the date of demand, till actual payment. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973 bearing registration No.29/9.6.1961. The Petitioner No.1-Society is running a college in the name of Kalyan Mahavidyalay. The college run by the petitioner No. 1-society is a private college, receiving grant in aid from the Govt. On 15th December, 1984, the State Govt. issued an order in the matter of exemption of tuition fee and laboratory fee to girl students. The State Govt. in its order stated that the decision has been taken to exempt girl students of university and colleges from payment of tuition fee and laboratory fee and further that financial loss caused to the university and aided non- Govt. colleges be reimbursed by way of grant. Vide Circular dated 22.2.1986 (Anndure P-2), the Madhya Pradesh Higher Education Grants Commissions, provided that 50 per cent of the tuition fee would be provided as maintenance grant.

(2.) Further case of the petitioners is that in view of the aforesaid policy decision and direction issued by the Govt. and assurance of reimbursement to the extent of 50 per cent by way of maintenance grant, the petitioner-institution exempted girl students from payment of tuition fee and laboratory fee and claimed reimbursement by submission of demand in respect of the academic sessions 1984-85 and 1985-86, which was sanctioned by the Grants Commission, which is evident from letter dated 12.9.1986 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the demand towards reimbursement to the extent of 50 per cent of the tuition fee in respect of academic sessions 1987-88, 1988-89. & 1989-90 and so on from time to time, but the payments were not released even though reminders were sent by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the amount due and payable in respect of 4 academic sessions is to the tune of R.3,04,455=50/-. The petitioner, thereafter, kept on submitting demand for reimbursement to the extent of 50 per cent up to academic sessions 1998-99, but, no reimbursement was made. Finally, the petitioner, finding that reimbursement, as assured, is not being made, decision was taken to collect tuition fee and laboratory fee from: girl students from academic session 1999-2000 onwards. Even after several reminders sent, the amount claimed by the petitioner was not reimbursed. The petitioner thereafter sent legal notice to respondents (Annexure P-26) and in reply to the legal notice, office of respondent No 3 vide their memo dated 13.1.2003 wrote to the Commissioner, Higher Education, Chhattisgarh that in view of the apportionment of assets and liabilities, the liability towards payment to the petitioner- institution situated in Chhattisgarh is of the State of Chhattisgarh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the then State of Madhya Pradesh and Grants Commission by their policy decision dated 15th December, 1984 (Annexure P-1) and dated 22.2.1986 (Annexure P-2), clearly represented to all the private educational institutions receiving grant in aid form the Govt., including the petitioner-institution, that the girl students are to be exempted from payment of tuition fee and the loss would be reimbursed. He further submits that the Grants Commission, in compliance of the order dated 15th December, 1984 of the State Govt. clearly stated in its letter dated 22.2.1986 (Annexure P-2) that non-Govt. aided colleges would be reimbursed to the extent of 50 per cent by way of maintenance grant. He submit that on such clear and unequivocal representation and promise made by the Govt. and Grant Commission, the petitioner altered their position to their detriment and did not recover tuition fee from girl students up to academic session 1998-99. Though respondents reimbursed the petitioner-educational institution for two academic sessions i.e. 1984-85 & 1985-86, thereafter, respondents No. 1 & 3 arbitrarily resiled from their promise and did not reimburse loss caused to the institution on account of non-recovery of tuition fee from girl students up to the academic sessions 1998-99. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having acted on the representation made by the respondents No.1 & 3 and having altered its position to its serious detriment, respondents No. 1 & 3 are bound by principles of promissory estoppel to fulfill their promise of reimbursement to petitioner in respect of the period during which the petitioner did not recover the tuition fee from girl students. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of The Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V Venkatadri (dead) by L.Rs., 1979 AIR(SC) 1144 B.L. Sreedhar and Ors. Vs. K. M. Munireddy (dead) and Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 578 State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., 2004 AIR(SC) 297 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after re-organization of the State and in view of reply to legal notice (Annexure P-27) issued from the office of respondent No.3, the State of M.P. as well as the State of Chhattisgarh both are liable to make payment of the amount of reimbursement to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the petitioner approached the respondents 1 & 3 time and again and they were assured till 1999 that the amount would be reimbursed to them, for the first time, when the president of petitioner No 1 -society met the finance officer and other concerned officer in April, 2000 at Bhopal, he was told that after formation of State of Chhattisgarh, the demand raised by the petitioner are to be now satisfied by the State of Chhattisgarh, as the grants, assets and liabilities have been adjusted and settled by the two Govt. and now the State of M.P. is no longer liable for payments of the amount claimed by the petitioner. When the official of the petitioner-institution contacted in the office of respondent No.4, no clear and definite response was given and finally a legal notice was given, to which, reply dated 13.1.2003 was received from respondent No.3 and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.