ANITA GUPTA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 1.3.2002 and Notification dated 27.2.2002 issued by the respondents closing down the Programme Study Centre No.0745(P) which was being run by the petitioner under the name of M/s Sofftech Computer City at Sector - 7, Rohini, Delhi.

(2.) The case, as set up by the petitioner,is that the respondents are the officers of Indira Gandhi National Open University established under an Act of Parliament for advancement and dissemination of learning and knowledge in Communication Technology. To achieve its object the University through its Regional Centres have engaged the services of various private centres for imparting Computer education to the students. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s Softtach Computer City, was engaged by the respondents and in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.9.1999 was awarded the status of work Centre for the Certificate in Computing and Bachelors in Computer Application Programmes. The respondents allotted students to the petitioner's centre where all arrangements were made and basic facilities provided to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner's centre was upgraded from work Centre to Study Centre vide MOU dated 14.9.2000. The petitioner incurred heavy expenditure in creating the infrastructure and engaging staff for running the said Study Centre and was allotted 1716 students for the session January to June 2001 and 1150 students for July to December 2001 session. For January to June 2002, 1051 students were allotted to the petitioner vide respondent? letter dated 21.12.01. The petitioner further pleaded that in view of satisfactory performance in the current session from January to June 2002 the respondents further allotted 58 seats vide letter dated 10.1.2002 and one more student vide letter dated 22.2.2002. On 24.1.2002 the respondents appreciated the programmes and education being imparted to the students at the petitioner's centre. Blank examination forms for the students for June 2002 were issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner there was no complaint of any irregularity against the petitioner's Centre but still vide letter dated 1.3.2002 the respondents informed the petitioner that her Study Centre had been ordered to be closed with immediate effect. A copy of the Notification dated 27.2.2002 was also sent alongwith this letter. The petitioner challenges this action of the respondent as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the statute and submits that no Show Cause Notice was given before taking the action against her. The petitioner has prayed that the impugned letter and the order be quashed and the respondents be restrained from withdrawing the students from the Centre of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit in which preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the petitioner is trying to seek enforcement of a Commercial contract and as such her petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is guilty of concealment and suppression of material facts from the Court on account of which even interim relief was obtained. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not disclose to the Court that there were so many complaints against her centre in regard to its functioning and as such her claim that there were no complaints against her Study Centre was false. The respondents submit that there were various irregularities in the petitioner's Study Centre in as much as the Councellors were not taking classes regularly and the students were being made to fill up and sign, at the beginning of the semestor itself, the attendance sheet in advance for creating false proof of the attendance of the students so as to stake false claim upon the respondent University for payment on the basis of students having attended the practical sessions. Vide a letter dated 22.9.2001 the petitioner was asked to explain these irregularities by 28.9.2001. The petitioner however did not respond to this letter (Annexure 4). In the course of inspection of Study Centre it was also found that out of a batch of 66 students the petitioner had marked 47 students present but only 9 students were physically present for the programme of BCA II. In the case of CAC out of the batch of 86 students only 26 students were found present. The respondents wrote a letter dated 9.10.01 to the petitioner to explain the position by 19.10.2001,( A copy of the letter is Annexure R-5) but the petitioner did not give any response. It was also pointed out to petitioner that the term of Programme Incharge, Mr. V.K. Valuchi was coming to an end on 31.12.2001 and as such petitioner was requested on 6.11.01 to send three names for filling up the post. Time given was upto 16.11.2001 but despite so many reminders the petitioner sent a belated communication dated 5.12.2001 nominating one person only. Again a request was made to send the names of three Counsellors for the post of Programming Incharge vide letter dated 1.1.02 (Annexure R.7).