HARPAL SINGH DHINGRA Vs. PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, appointed as an authorized Study Centre of the respondent University under its Distance Education Programme for conducting various Information Technology (IT) courses of the University has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 10 th February, 2010 of the University holding that the term of the authorization letters earlier issued to the petitioner and of the contract with the petitioner had already expired and also terminating the authorization/contract with the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner having indulged in activities detrimental to the academic pursuits of a State Technical University and for the reason of the Centre of the petitioner being a teaching shop for commercial gains and bringing bad name to the University. THE petition seeks restoration of the status of the petitioner as the authorized center of the University and direction to the University to refund/remit certain amounts, TDS Certificates etc. to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.7327/2008 impugning the order dated 3rd July, 2008 of the University suspending the petitioner's Centre. During the pendency of that petition a cancellation order dated 24 th October, 2008 was also served on the petitioner. THE said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 24th October, 2008. THE petitioner preferred an Intra Court Appeal being LPA No.126/2009 which was disposed of vide consent order dated 4th May, 2009 whereunder the University agreed to withdraw the cancellation order dated 24th October, 2008 then issued to the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice and to issue show cause notice and to grant hearing to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. However the orders suspending the Centre of the petitioner was allowed to continue and it was further directed that the petitioner shall neither advertise nor issue any Brochure or otherwise put up any signboard of the University.

(3.) SINCE the order impugned in this writ petition also recorded that the term for which the petitioner was authorized to run the Study Centre of the University had already expired, it was at the outset enquired as to in which document was the said term prescribed. The senior counsel for the respondents in this regard has drawn attention to a Certificate of Authorization issued to the petitioner wherein the authorization of the petitioner is shown to be from June, 2001 to May, 2006. Else, none of the other documents filed show any such term. The senior counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the calendar of the University also does not provide for authorization for a certain period. It is further contended that since the petitioner continued to be the authorized centre even after the year 2006, the term mentioned in the certificate is irrelevant and what has to be seen by this Court is as to whether the reasons on which the cancellation has been effected are made out or not.