IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.10231-32 of 2008 and C.W.P.No.6339 of 2008 Date of Decision:23.05.2008. Dr.Shikha Aggarwal and others ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms.Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (ORAL) C.M.No.10231 of 2008 Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and Annexures are taken on record. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M.No.10232 of 2008 C.M. is allowed. C.W.P.No.6339 of 2008 The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the petitioners have been asked to pay the enhanced registration fee for NRI quota. The petitioners applied for admission to Post Graduate Degree C.M.Nos.10231-32 of 2008 and --2-- C.W.P.No.6339 of 2008 courses against NRI quota after filling up the application form attached with the Prospectus for post graduate entrance test (PGET-2007) issued by the respondent-University. In the Prospectus issued by the College- respondent No.3, the registration fee was depicted as US$1,000/-. There was also a Clause that in case there is any change in the fee structure then an amendment would be made accordingly. The petitioners deposited 1,000/- $ as registration fee. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5 dated 04.01.2008, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana demanded the balance of the enhanced registration fee payable to the University i.e. US$7,250/- per student. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the fee of US$1,000/- had been published in the Prospectus issued by the College, therefore, the College cannot demand US$7,250/- after the entire fee has already been paid by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the Board of Directors of the University had taken a decision on 09.01.2007 which was conveyed to the respondent-College on 10.04.2007 that henceforth, the registration fee would be US$ 1500/- or 15% of the fee, whichever is higher. This fact was not incorporated in the Prospectus by the College. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the communication was issued by the University on 18.04.2007 and the Prospectus had been made available for sale on the same day and hence, the amendment could not be incorporated. It is submitted that there is already a Clause in the Prospectus that any amendments made by the University would be binding upon the students. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the C.M.Nos.10231-32 of 2008 and --3-- C.W.P.No.6339 of 2008 considered opinion that so far as the Board of Directors of the University is concerned, they had taken a decision on 09.01.2007 wherein it was decided to charge US$1500/- or 15% of the fee, whichever is higher from every student who had applied for Post Graduate Degree courses. Although, the respondent-College did not incorporate this fact in the Prospectus yet the petitioners are bound to pay the enhanced registration fee. The aforementioned enhanced fee has also been paid by all other students who have taken admission under the NRI quota. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners be given liberty to file a civil suit claiming the damages from the University as the petitioners were wrongly informed about the registration fee. The petitioners may take recourse to the remedy which may available to them in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 23, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE