BHAGWAN MAHAVIR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY SONEPAT Vs. HARYANA STATE COUNSELLING SOCIETY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an unaided College of Engineering and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the College) has approached this Court praying for quashing of orders dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Haryana State Counselling Society-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Counselling Society') directing the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, which was the fee deposited by respondent No.6-Manish Aggarwal and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the petitioner for not complying with the Government instructions with a further direction to deposit these two amounts in the account of the Society. Challenge is to order dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure P-11) passed in furtherance to order dated 11.12.2009 asking the petitioner as to why irregularity of non-refund of fee be not brought to the notice of All India Council for Technical Education (for short AICTE) with further request that this amount be deducted from the FDR of the Institute kept with AICTE as also order dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P-13) recommending to the Registrar of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak-respondent No.2 to consider for enlistment of the petitioner-College in "No admission category" and for "Disaffiliation" and the consequential order dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P-16) received from the M.D.U., Rohtak, asking the petitioner-College to refund the fee to Sachin Taneja, Ankita Jain, Chandroop and Manish Aggarwal (Respondents No.3 to 6), failing which disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-College would be initiated under the Act and Statute of the University, being violative of the instructions issued by AICTE with regard to the refund of fee. Challenge to the order dated 11.12.2009 and all consequential orders is on the ground that the action of the Counselling Society-respondent No.1 is without any jurisdiction or mandate of law.

(2.) Facts, in brief, which need reference for appreciating the controversy involved in the present case are that the petitioner is a private unaided College of Engineering and Technology located at Sonepat in Haryana which runs Bachelor of Engineering/B.Tech. Courses. Admissions to these courses are made on the basis of All India Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE). On the basis of the result of this examination, Haryana State Counselling Society-respondent No.1 conducts the counselling and supervises the admission process in pursuance of that mandate. Brochure for the academic session 2009-2010 was issued by the Counselling Society. Petitioner-College is affiliated to M.D.U., Rohtakrespondent No.2. Petitioner has 420 seats in different branches of Engineering and the brochure issued by the Counselling Society included these seats for admission to B.E./B.Tech. Courses.

(3.) As per the brochure, academic session for the first year was to start on 16.7.2009 and the cut-off date for all admissions was 10.8.2009 (5.00 p.m.). This cut-off date was first extended to 30.8.2009 and then further extended to 5.9.2009. Respondents No.3 to 6 took admission in the petitioner-College through the counselling held by respondent No.1 and paid full fee as required for first year and joined the course. They attended the classes for various periods and then left the petitioner-College. Details of their joining and leaving the college are as below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_763_LAWS(P&H)1_2012(1).html</FRM>