CWP No.7424 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 03.09.2009 Raj Kumar Bajaria Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr.Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana,for respondent No.1. Mr.Sameer Singh,Advocate,for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,for respondent No.4. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,for respondent No.5 -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner has applied for admission to MDS course in Dentistry. He was admitted and allotted respondent No.5 College. Respondent No.5 College vide its letter dated 23.05.2009 asked the petitioner to deposit the fee for the first year amounting to Rs.5,44,000/- and also to furnish Bank guarantee for the next two years fee within four days of admission i.e. 27.05.2009 and also furnish an affidavit for the payment of the additional fee as may be decided by the State Fee Committee. In response to the aforesaid letter the petitioner has mentioned that “ I could not agree with condition Nos.2 and 4” Thereafter, the petitioner was given information vide letter dated 29.05.2009 to attend the CWP No.7424 of 2009 : 2 : counselling on the same day failing which the seat will not be with-held. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he could not deposit the fee as desired by respondent No.5 College. The only case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor person and approached the respondents for giving details of the fee structure to enable him to secure the loan. It is, accordingly, argued that since the respondents failed to provide the necessary details of the fee, the petitioner could not secure the loan from the Bank. While issuing notice of motion on 18.05.2009, this Court recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner which reads as under:- “Learned counsel contends that although the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, however, being meritorious, studious and hardworking, got admission on the basis of his merit in General Category. The fees demanded by the respondents is in excess of Rs.10 lac. The petitioner, having financial restrains and impediment, sought one week's time to make arrangements for the fees by way of getting loan from the Bank.” From the above, it appears that the petitioner sought one week's time for deposit of the fee. In the meantime, the seat allocated to the CWP No.7424 of 2009 : 3 : petitioner was also kept reserved if not already allocated. Even after this order, the petitioner failed to deposit the fee within one week as per undertaking given before this Court. The respondents have filed their separate replies. Respondent No.5 which was impleaded later, has filed its detailed reply giving the details of the admission made and the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the fee. It is stated that the seat in question was required to be filled up to 31.05.2009 and on the failure of the petitioner to pay the fee, the vacancy was filled up on the last date. It is further stated that no admission was granted to any student after 31.05.2009 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 65. In view of the above circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 03.09.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUEGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO