ANKIT KUMAR MISHRA Vs. U P TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Heard Mr. M. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Shukla, learned Counsel for the Technical University. As the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, issuance of notice to the College is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has appeared in the counselling, which has been held after the combined entrance examination conducted by the U. P. Technical University and on the basis of counselling, he has been recommended to the D. N. S. College of Engineering & Management to pursue B. Tech course, but subsequently the petitioner decided not to pursue the B. Tech. course from the said institution. Thereafter, he preferred an application before the opposite party No. 4 for refund of fee deposited by him and to return his original documents, which, according to him, is pending disposal. Mr. Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the University submits that the Government has already framed a policy by means of Government Order dated 18. 4. 2006, whereby it has been stated that the Head of College/principal has been delegated to decide the fee refund matter, from where the student has been allotted to pursue B. Tech. Course. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Principal/opposite party No. 4 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, latest by 31. 1. 2009. .