^ w -£ ijW' ^ ^FfasQ/^ IN_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P.rc)No.s'/^/2006 Petitioner 'Vinita Shrivastava, D/o M.P.Shrivastava, Aged about 20 years, R/o Behind A-44, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents ^°", ^•"'^ L.^ 2) ^y/r ^>y/' 4^€/ /,«^a" ^•-^^v' o-' K ^^••' : /1) Rai Foundation Colleges (Earlier known as Rai University), Raipur, [C.G.] State of Chhattisgarh - Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Technical Education, Janashakti Niyojan & Sdence Technology, DKS Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) . 3) All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi. ^s-^"^:^^. -«^?.:^ \^'"v'^ •^ *\ ff^f\ \ . ^ ^ - J1 fr^ 1^M°* t?'!^* 1 ^-^..- - -'-*-* ^y^^ ? ? WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA • i2TT AOS I S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVA, J. Writ Petition (C) No.5144 of20( Vtnita Shrivastava Versus R^PONDBNTS Rai Foundation Colleges (earlier known as Ral University), Raipur & Ors. Petitipa u/Article 236/227 of_theConstitut|oaMIndia Mr. Anand Dadariya, counsel for fhe petitioner. Mr. S.S. Rajput, counsel tbr respondent No. l. Mr. Sutyakaat Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Ms. Maya Verma, Advocate, along with Mr. S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. QRAL^C®DBR (Passedon23.3.2011) Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction that the petitioner be admitted back free of cost in the College of respondent No.l and for direction to respondent No.3/AU India CoLmcil for Technical Education (AICTE) to grant approval. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of paynient of compensation and damages. Yet another prayer made by fhe petitioner is that 'S?.S,]:5>»°W I^ -2- the respondent be directed to refund fee of Rs.85,000/- alon^ with interest@ 18 % per annum to the petitioner. 3. The grievance of fhe petitioner is fhat fhe petitioner had taken admission in the private University opened by respondent No. 1 to pursue a coiirse namely B.A. in HospitaJity Management. In fhe course of time, fhe validity of the provisions contatned in Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwawidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyam ) Adhiruyam, 2002, were subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court and thereafter, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional creation of such private Universities. In order to save tfae future of the students who were pursuing fhe coru-ses in the Institution of respondent No. 1, certain directions were issued, wherein, respondent No. l was to seek afBliation as a College from theState University. The State Umversity granted afilliation vlde order dated 12.8.2005 (Annexure R-1/3) subject to the condition that respondent No.l shall seek approval of the AICTE also. However, AICTE, vide its letter dated 14th July, 2006 (Annexure R-1/5) granted aGBliation to respondent'No. 1 in respect ofvarious courses and not in respect of fhe course which as being pursued by the petitioner in the Institution ofrespondent No. 1. In that background, fhe petitioner filed this petition. 4. It appears that aU the students, tncluding the petitioner, left fhe Institution of respondent No. 1 finding their future to be in dark. Later on, by way of amendment, the petitioner has sought ^ •ys.u.^ff:':^^^ c' -3- additional rellef of refund of fee which was paid by her to respondent No. 1. 5. Leamed counsel for respondent No. 1 -submits fhat tn view Qf tfae judgment of Supreme Court, respondent No. 1 had to apply for affiliation as a College to Pt. Ravishankar University, which had granted it affiliation and it required fhe respondent No. 1 to seek approval of AICTE, but AICTE states that such course cannot be approved as it is outside the purvlew of fhe function of AICTE. He also subinitted fhat in these circum.stances, the claim of fhe petitioner is under consideration of respondent No.l. He submits that fhe Institution is also considering with regard to refund of fee which was already paid by the petitioner. He submits ttiat fhe decision wifh regard to case of fhe petitioner would be taken by respondent No. 1 within a period of 3 months. 6. On such submissions made by leamed counsel for fhe respondent No. 1, instead of going into merits of fhe case, at fhis stage, I deem it expedient to finatly dispose of the raatter. However, if respondent No.l does not satisly fhe petitiorter's claun, the petitioner shall be entiUed to take recourse to remedy available to her, under the law. 7. Wifh the aforesaid observations, the petition is llnally disposed of. Praveen Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^.^i- ' '" " "^K^'^'-Q^W^