SHIKHA GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. No one appeared for respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE petitioner was admitted in September, 2003 in the course of Bachelor of Physiotheraphy (BPT). In the brochure published by Paramedical Council of M.P. for different courses of studies for 2003 -04 fees prescribed for free seat is Rs. 41,000/ -, fees prescribed for payment seat is Rs. 67,000/ - and the fees prescribed for NRI quota is 2000 $ for 3 to 4 years degree course. The petitioner's case is that she was admitted in the BPT course by respondent No. 4 college in a payment seat and not in the NRI quota and, therefore, was liable to pay fees payable for payment seat and not liable to pay fees payable for NRI quota. Yet, respondent No. 4 has been demanding fees from the petitioner as if she was admitted to a seat in NRI quota.

(3.) RETURN has also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, the State of M.P. and the Director Medical Education, M.P, in which it is stated that students seeking admission to a free seat was liable to pay Rs. 41,000/ - per annum inclusive of tution fee and other charges whereas students admitted against payment seat was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 67,000/ - towards tution fee and other charges but since the petitioner has not clarified under which category she was admitted in respondent No. 4 college, it is difficult for respondents No. 1 and 2 to point out as to how much fee respondent No. 4 is entitled to charge from the petitioner. There is no mention in the return filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 regarding fees to be paid by the students admitted in the NRI quota presumably because, even according to respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner is not an NRI or is not a ward and child of NRI.