IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3317 of 2011 Date of decision : 10.3.2011 S.D.Arya Educational Society (Regd.), Balsamand Road, Hisar, Haryana ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order Annexure P-23 which is of the year 2008. His grievance is that the Endowment Fund which he was required to deposit as a pre-condition for provisional no objection certificate has been forfeited. He draws the attention of this Court to Clause 14 of Annexure P-5, which reads as under :- “14. Endowment Fund in the shape of FDR of Rs.5.00 lacs pledged in the name of Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana is to be deposited in this office within 15 days of issuance of NOC. In case, the institute is not able to run/sustain itself, the NOC shall be withdrawn and the Endowment Fund in the shape of FDR of Rs.5.00 lacs submitted by the Applicant shall be forfeited to continue C.W.P.No.3317 of 2011 -2- the studies of the enrolled students/for the payment of the salary of staff and for other costs of running the institute and just in case the funds available in the college are not sufficient, the balance amount shall be recovered from the applicant society/trust/company/individual(s) as per the Law of State.” It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the college never became functional, therefore, the question of forfeiture of the Endowment Fund does not arise. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on due consideration, I am of the opinion that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. This Court is not convinced with the contention that has been raised before it. The aforesaid clause contemplates two eventualities –- one, where the college has been unable to become functional and the other where it is unable to sustain itself. In the later contingency, the fund is to be utilised for the payment of salaries to the staff and for enabling the students to continue with their studies and in the former eventuality where the college is unable to become functional at all, the fund can still be forfeited. Besides this, the petitioner is impugning the order of 2008 in the year 2011 and the writ petition is also hit by delay and laches. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. 10.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss