W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th August, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 % MRS. HARJINDER KHURANA ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Jatan Singh & Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocates for R-1 & 2. Mr. Gaurav Sharma & Mr. J.P. Karunakaran, Advocates for R-3 IIT. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner’s son, though holding a Thai Passport but of Indian Origin took admission to the respondent no.3 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi in the year 2006; she was called upon to pay the fee as applicable to a foreign student. The fee payable for a foreign student being considerable higher than that payable by an Indian Student, the petitioner represented and upon her representations not meeting with any success preferred this writ petition. This Court while issuing notice of the writ petition, vide order dated 31st October, 2007 restrained the respondent no.3 W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 Page 2 of 5 IIT from enforcing the demand for differential amount. However the said interim order was vacated on 24th September, 2008 and petitioner was directed to deposit the fee arrears. The petitioner again represented that she was unable to pay the fee in foreign exchange as required. Vide order dated 22nd April, 2009 it was clarified that if the petitioner is unable to pay the fee in foreign exchange, she would be liable to pay the fee in Indian Rupees equivalent. Further time was granted to make the payment. On 21st July, 2009 it was informed that the arrears of fee had been paid. Of course, such payment was subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. 2. On 23rd February, 2010 it was informed on behalf of the respondent no.3 IIT that the petitioner’s son at the time of his admission in the year 2006 was liable to pay the fee as of a foreign student but subsequently Section 7 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended and certain benefits were extended to Persons of Indian Origin including ‘Right to Education’, with effect from the academic session 2008-09, the petitioner’s son being of Indian Origin was required to pay the same fee as Indian Student. 3. In the circumstances aforesaid, it was today at the outset enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how much was the differential amount. It was informed that if this writ petition was to succeed, an amount of approximately `3,00,000/- would be refundable to the petitioner. The family background of the petitioner was enquired into. It has been informed that the husband of the petitioner is a businessman. It was yet further W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 Page 3 of 5 enquired as to whether the petitioner/her family were in any financial hardship or it was the case of the petitioner that she was unable to pay the higher fee. The counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that it was not so and rather offered that the petitioner even in the event of succeeding, will donate the amount refunded to the respondent no.3 IIT and the present fight is not over money but of principle. 4. Though it was put to the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner even if correct in her contention was not entitled to the relief as a matter of right and this Court in exercise of its discretionary powers in the facts aforesaid, may still decline to grant relief to the petitioner but the counsel for the petitioner insisted upon arguing the matter to contend that the petitioner was not liable for higher fee as a foreign student. 5. The Supreme Court in Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 2889 held that issuance of a writ of certiorari (as has been claimed in the present case also) is a discretionary remedy and that the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so and in a given case, may refuse to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the applicant. Similarly, in Taherakhatoon Vs. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 even at the time of the dealing with the appeal after grant of special leave, it was held that the Court was not bound to go into the merits and even if entering into the merits and finding an error, was not bound to interfere if the justice of the case on facts W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 Page 4 of 5 does not require interference or if the relief could be moulded in a different fashion. This Court has echoed the same views in Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd. v. N.C.T., thr. Secy. Labour 131 (2006) DLT 648 by holding that even if there is a violation of law, this Court is not bound to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and in Babu Ram Sagar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court MANU/DE/9235/2006 by refusing to interfere in exercise of discretionary powers inspite of holding the reasons given by the Labour Court to be not convincing. 6. I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts aforesaid. Respondent no.3 IIT is one of the premier educational institutes of the country and the petitioner inspite of holding a Foreign Passport chose to return for his education to the country of his Origin even though he had other choices. The petitioner ought not to litigate with those imparting education to her son. The relationship between an educational institution and its students is sacred and ought not to be permitted to become commercial. Owing to the amendment (supra) of the citizenship laws, part relief has already been granted to the petitioner. It is felt that this litigation should not be encouraged. I have taken the said view in the light of the petitioner having fairly not expressed any financial constraints. In these times when beneficiaries of such Educational Institutions whose faculty continues to selflessly churn out the best minds in the world are ploughing back extensively to their alma mater, I do not see any reason to even go into the merits of the case. W.P.(C) No.8013/2007 Page 5 of 5 7. The writ petition is disposed of refusing to exercise the discretionary powers in the facts of the case. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 19th August, 2010 bs (corrected and released on 7th December, 2010)