CHAVDA KIRITKUMAR JAYANTILAL Vs. COMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the petitioner is not entitled to pay and deposit four years fees in respondent No. 4 College as the petitioner's son got admission in Veterinary College at Anand. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the respondent No. 4 College for refunding the amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- paid by the petitioner's son. The petitioner has further prayed for the direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to frame appropriate guidelines regarding charging of fees by self-financed colleges in the facts situation like that of the present one.

(2.) THIS Court has issued notice on 17. 12. 2004. The petition was admitted and rule was issued on 22. 12. 2004. During the pendency of this petition, an amount of Rs. 99,000/- was refunded to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 College and this fact was recorded in the order of this Court passed on 20. 2. 2009. Since the question of interest still remains to be resolved, the Court has asked the respondent No. 4 college to file affidavit-in-reply to that effect. Accordingly, affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 on 15. 5. 2009. It is also an admitted position that an amount of Rs. 33,000/- being the first year fees was received by the respondent No. 4 College and it was lying with the Joint Admission Committee and that amount was paid by the Joint Admission Committee on 23. 12. 2004. Hence the dispute in the present petition confine merely to the petitioner's claim regarding interest on Rs. 99,000/- which was retained by the respondent No. 4 College for the period of about four years.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the respondent No. 4 College, for the purpose of giving No Objection Certificate to the petitioner's son for leaving the studies in the first year Engineering Course and for joining studies in Veterinary College at Anand. In fact, in the reshuffling process, the very same college has already admitted another student in place of the petitioner's son. Inspite of the same, such huge amount was charged from the petitioner and only after paying the huge amount, no Objection Certificate came to be issued by the College on the basis of which the Joint Admission Committee gave the original mark-sheet of petitioner's son. It is, therefore, alleged that seeking no Objection Certificate from the College is nothing but a sheer exploitation of a citizen by the respondent No. 4 College and hence the present petition is filed by the petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court.