(1.) The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash Clause 7(d) of the Prospectus for admission to M.Sc. Micro Bial Gene Technology 2001-2002 and direct the respondent to refund the fees paid at the time of admission.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for M.Sc. Micro Bial Gene Technology for the academic year 2001-2002 and was admitted to the Course and paid a sum of Rs. 39,945/- towards tuition and special fees on 8.6.2001. Subsequently, he was selected for M.Sc, Bio-Tech in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and joined the course. Though the petitioner's father made a request to the University for refund of Rs. 37,750/- after deducting the special fees of Rs. 2,195/-, it was not refunded. In this regard, a representation dated 6.12.2001 was made. As there was no response, legal notices dated 22.5.2002 and 30.5.2002 were issued. Since by Clause 7(d) of the Prospectus for admission to M.Sc. Micro Bial Gene Technology Course for the Academic Year 2001-2002, a restriction was imposed for refund of any fees or excess fees once paid, either for refund or adjustment, the respondent have not refunded the amount claimed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner, left with no other option has challenged the above said clause as illegal, opposed to public policy and consequently, prayed for refund of the fees paid.
(3.) Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation and Another, v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another AIR 1986 SCC 1571 : (1986)3 SCC 156 : 1986-II-LLJ-171, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that Clause 7(d) of the Prospectus is opposed to public policy as laid down by the Supreme Court and it is also violative of Section 23 of the Contract Act. He further submitted that after the departure of the petitioner from the University, the resultant vacancy was filled up by another candidate and that fee was also collected from him. In the absence of any rebuttal to the said aspect in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he submitted that the respondent being a public authority and imparting higher education cannot make enrichment at the cost of the students.