MADAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my view the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in N.R. Choudhary v. Ministry of Human Resource, 103 (2003) Delhi Law Times 389 (DB). Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to draw the distinction between the said judgment and the facts of the present case inasmuch as unlike the petitioner before the Division Bench, the present petitioners are the wards of CISF employees. Keeping in view the gravamen of the judgment and the fact that it has been specifically observed that a distinction can be drawn between wards of NTPC employees and other persons. I do not think that it would make any material difference whether the non-NTPC employees are from another organisation or are civilians. It has been stated by Mr. Taneja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NTPC that Sh. N.R. Choudhary is a Central Government employee. All the petitioners are thus of like status and standing.

(2.) The other contention is that the Hon'ble Division Bench was not ceased with an astronomical increase in the fees in as much as the fee has now been raised to Rs.400/-. Even this submission is not of substance since in paragraph 6 the proposed fee of .Rs. 400/- has been countenanced.

(3.) So far as the levy of fee is concerned the Division Bench took note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disagreed with the view expressed in Unikrishanan's case and had clarified in the TMA Pai's Foundation decision that private institutions are free to impose a fee structure of their own.