r"\ mOH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONER Versus RE8PONDENTS 1. W.P.(C.) No. 7356/2007 Ku. Sonpa Vishwakarma, D/o. Shn R.R. Vishwakarma, aged about 22 years, R/o Surajpur, Suiyija, Distt. Suiyija (CO) (r \ 3. 4. 8. 10. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy Health and Famity Welfare Deparfaaient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir, Distt Ralpur (CO) Dlrector, Unanl Hemeopathy and Ayurved Directorate Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Pt. Ravi Shankar Shiikla University, through its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shirida Uruversity, Ralpiir, Distt. Raipur (CG) Gui'u Ghasi Das Universlly, fhrougli its Registrar, Guru Ghasi Das Universily, Bilaspur, Distt. BUaspur (Chhatdsgarh) Vice ChanceUor, Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) C.L. Chouksey Meiuorial Hemeopafhic Medical CoUege, Lal Khadan, Bilaspur, fhrough its Director, C.L. Chouksey Memiorial Homeopathic Medical Cottege, Lal Khadan, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Pnncipal, C.L. Chouksey Memorial Homeopathic Medical CoTlege, Lal Khadan, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chliattisgarh) Central Coi-mcil of Homeopathy, DeUil through its Secretaiy, Central Council of Homeopafhy, 61-65, InsUtutional Ai'ea, Jan.akpui'i, New Delhill0058 President, Central Council of Homeopafhy, 61-65, Institutional Area, Jaiiakpur, New DeUii-110 058 Maharana Hoineopathic Medical College, New Rajendra Nagar, Ralpm', Tlii'ougli its Priiiclpal, Maharana. Homeopathic Medical CoUege, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) ..f;.'^5""""^'1^'?. /y^\ f" 9^^ '*' ^ I 1 I. a,'~"HI 1 ^ fc-wlf ,;" ^:""I^*1" ':\ .?"•.. t. Sbri Maaoj Paraujpe, Adv. tbr fhe petitiDner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer, for fh.e State/respondent No. l. Shri Paalcaj Shrivastava, Advocate for tUe respondents No. 6 and 7. Shri Dhiraj Kumar Waakhede, Advocate, for fhe respondcnts No. 8 and9. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate, for fhe respondents No. 4, 5 aad 10, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COHSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDER --8-2008 Dhirendra Mishra, J. The petitioner has filed fhis petition under Ardcle 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:- i. The Honlle Court may kuidty be pleased to issue a writ / writs, order/orders, direction/ directions agam.st fhe respondent No. 8 and 9 to issue fhe order of permission in favoiir of the petitioner in respect of change the institution or fhey may kindty be directed to grant pennission to fhe petitioner in respect of the change of fhe instltution and to pass the order on the application of fhe petitioner dated 15-9-2007 (Aiinexure P-19). u. The HonTsle Court may kmdty be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus a^inst respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to grant migration certificate to fhe petitioner and fhey may kindly be directed to permit fhe petitioner to appear in IInd Year B.ILMJ i. Examination, which is scheduled to take place from 12-12-2007. iii. The HonTale Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable wnt/writs, direction/directions, order/ orders against respondents No. 6 aad 7 to issue fhe transfer certi&cate wifh no objectton certiG.cate and for retuming the orignal certificate of fhe peUtioner i.e. mark sheets of class 10th, 12a and 1st year B.H.M.S. iv. The HonTale Court may kindfy be pleased to direct fhe respondent No. 1 to hold an inquiry in respect of the case of fhe petitioner and fhe responsible of5cers may kindty be punlshed and fhe proper action may kindly be directed to be taken against fhe respondent No. 6 and 7 and fhe compensation to fhe tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- may kmdly be awarded to fhe petitioner. , - v. The Hon'ble Court may kindty be pleased to grant any ofher relief which is deemed Ht and proper in the facts and circuinstances of fhe case. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is fhat she was admitted in the respondent No. 6- CoUege m fhe 1s* year BHMS course for the academic year 2003-04. After passing 1st years, she secured admission in fhe 2nd year in fhe /" t». sanie institution and paid fee at the time of final examination. She paid tuition fee tfarough two postdated cheques (Annexiires P-4 and P-5), however the cheques were toEn by fhe CoUege authority. She again submitted two cheques towards fee, which were accepted by fhe CoUege authorities and accordingly, No Objection Certificate was granted to fhe petitioner. The petitioner also pald examination fee of 2nd year and receipt was issued vide Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-8. Her duly filled examination form for (he 2nd year BHMS course was accepted by the institution, however she was informed by the CoUeee administration fhat her form has not been forwarded by fhe Colleee to the Unlversity and, therefore, she cannot appear in fhe examination. She submitted various representations to fhe CoUector of the District, the Dy. R^lstrar, Examination, Guru Ghasidas University, Registrar of fhe University and Director, Unanl Ayurvedic and Homeopafhic Directorate, however she did not get any response. The parents ofthe petitioner ultimately cancelled the cheques issued in favour of fhe respondent No. 7 and informed fhe respondent No. 6 about it vide Annexure P- 14. On her representation to the Govemor of fhe State, the Under Secretaiy directed fhe rcspondents No. 4 and 5 to take necessary action ui the matter. The respondent No. 2 also dlrected fhe Registrar of Ouru Ghasidas University to .,(lESS°=aB», ef^^S^, ff S , ''< ' ^^^5S^^. :.[ ^ '"'^s^ ^ s^?*ti .-.•'•: Ix !>.. 11 J '^y&^t's9'^-' take necessary action, however, no action was taken by fhe Registrar. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the parents of the petitioner decided to char^e the institution and accordu^ly, application for adm.ission was nioved before the respondent No. 10 vide Annexure P-18 and she was granted tem.poraiy admission in fhe College of respondent No. 10. The petitioner applied before respondents No. 8 and 9 for permission to change fhe institytion on 15-9- 2007 (Annexure P-19). Reminders were also sent but fhe rcspondents No. 8 and 9 have not accorded permission for change of iastitution. Her request for graat of transfer certi&cate and retum of origjial certificates of Class 10th and 12ttl and mark sheet of Ist year BHMS has not been conceded by fhe respondents No. 6 and 7 and for fhe aforesaid reasons, fhe respondents No. 4 and 5 have not issued migration certt&cate to fhe petitioner and in fhe absence of inigration certificate, fhe petitioner was not in a position to appear in the examiiiation of 2nd year BHMS which was scheduled for 12th December, 2007. 4. The resuondents No. 8 and 9, Central CouncU of Houieopathy, and its President in thetr counter affidavit, have stated fhat the request of fhe petitioner regarding migration of the p>etitioner to anofher coUege was considered in the nieeting of the Executive Coinmittee on •^ 22-11-2007 and it was decided to caU for the comments from. fhe College authorities in fhe matter. The Executive Comm.ittee of the Central CouncU ui its meeting dates 22- 12-2007 decided to aUow migration subject to submission of No Objection Certificate regardtng migration of fhe petitioner fi'om Chouksey Hoineopafhic Medical CoUege, BUaspur. 5. The respondent No. 4 and 5, Guru Gasidas University and its Vice ChanceUor in fheir retum, have averred that after recewing complauit of fhe petitioner, fhe matter was enquired into and it was found that fhere was dispute between fhe petitioner and respondent No. 6 with regard to payment of fee. As per version of fhe CoUege, since fhe petitioner did not pay requlsite fee while pursuing her 2nd year course m the CoUege, her exainination form was not forwarded to the Unlversity and, fherefore, she could not appear in the exainination conducted by the Unlversity. A meetmg was held by the University to explore the possibUlty of settlement of tfae dlspute by calling the Principal of the College and fhe father of the petitioner. Minutes of the said meeting were drawn, which bears the signatures of the Principal of fhe CoUege, fhe father of the petltioner and the Dy. Registrar Examination. In fhe said meeting also, the Principal of the College complained that the traasfer Gertificate and ofher testiinonials shsdl be retumed to the petitioner only after payment of 1he_ ^.gsnaia ^j "\. > balance of fees, whereas the father of fhe petitioner was adamant in not depositing the payable fees as future ofher daughter has been ruined by not atlowing her to ap{)ear in the 2nd year examination. It has been further averred fhat for issuance of mlgration certificate, fhe petitioner is required to submit transfer certificate from fhe concemed College or fhe application for issuance of migration certiflcate is required to be forwarded by the concemed College. Since the petitioner did not produce transfer certificate aad her application was also not forwarded by the Coll^e, migration certificate could not be issued. The Principal of the College, in reply to the letter dated 26-11- 2007 issued fixim the University, apprised the University by memo dated 30-11-2007 that fhe guardians of the petitioner can obtain the reqiiisite certfficate and other documents after fuffilling fhe formallties as per Clause 8 of the Uruversity Ordnance part II (Annexure R-4-2). Fafher of the petitioner was directed by fhe University vide Annexure R-4-4 to submit transfer certificate fi-om the concemed College along with no objection certificate, so that migration certificate could be issued. 6. The respondent No. 10, ia fheu- separate retum, denied that tfaey have given any adimssion to the petitioner i in their coUege. ^'.^^siiiiiiS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ' ^ 7. The respondents No. 6 and 7- C.L. Chouksey Memorial HomeopathiG Medical College and its Prmcipal, in fheir joint retum, have stated (hat fhe petitioner did not deposit the chargeable fee for BHMS 1st year and 2nd year course. She wanted to appear m the examination against the Ordnance frained by fhe University as weU as fhe Regulation of Central CouncU of Homeopafhy. The CoUege is an unaided institution and wholly depends upon the fee received froni the students for its affairs. The petitioner was required to pay Rs. 45,000/- towards tultion fee and Rs. 5,250/- towards Bus fair for 1st year BHMS course. However the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 10,600/- tiU 16th January, 2004 and Rs. 39,650/- was due s^ainst the petitioner. She appeared ui the main examination ofthe 1st year, which was held in the monfh of May, June, 2005 and she was declared faU. The petitioner thereafter deposited a total amount of Rs. 23,250 f- and Rs. 16,400/- was stffl outstandii^. The cheque ofRs. 21,000/- submitted by fhe fafher ofthe petitioner on 21-10-2005 was dishonored. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the supplementary examlnatlon of BHMS 1st year held in the month of Novem.ber, December, 2005, even though balance was due against fhe petitioner. In fhe supplementary exammation also, she faUed. However, she cleared 1st year BHMS in fhe 2nd suppleiiientary examtnation held in the monfh of June, July, 2006. The petitioner dld not pay fhe balance tiutiDn .'s" ^G \ fee of 1st year BHMS course. She was required to pay tuition fee ofRs. 30,000/- and Bus fair ofRs. 3,500/- for 2nd year BHMS coiirse and fhus, a total amount of Rs. 49,900 was due against her, out of which, she paid Rs. 5,000/- on 11-7-2007 by cash and Rs. 44,900/- remained outstandlr^. In fhese circumstances, fhe petitioner was not aUowed to appear in the 2nd year BHMS held in fhe monfh ofJiine, July, 2007, as she failed to pay due tUl 13- 7-2007. The Ordnance of fhe Urdversity empowers fhe Principal of the College or fhe Head of the University teaching department to detain a regular student from ta]dng exammation, if he does not pay outstanding college dues (Annexure R-6/1). The cheques submitted by the parents were not accepted by fhe CoUege as earlier cheques submitted by the parents bounced. The parents of the petitioner feuled to deposit the tuition fee in spite of number of opportunities given to them. The petitioner and ofher students were apprised ty the College authorities through general notice (Annexure R-6-4) fhat those who have not paid fee, would not be altowed to appear m the examination. The fafher ofthe petitioner was also apprised vide nienio of Annexure R-6-5 to deposit tultion fee of Rs. 30,000/- and further deposit the balance of fee ui fhe 1st year course, faUing which, she wUl not be pennitted to appear in the maia examination for 2nd year. It has been also averred fhat in case, the petitioner is interested ...<(3i-"BB»t /If^ ^^ a 10 appear in the examination to be held tn fhe month of May, 2008, she may pay the balance fee by way of mstaUnients in fhe respondent College and she shall be permitted to appear in fhe examination. 8. In fhe rejoinder to the retum filed by the respondents, fhe petitioner has reiterated her contention fhat the parents of fhe petitioner have deposited the fee for 2nd years BHMS vide cheques of Annexure P-35 and P-36. She has also paid examination fee of Rs. 1231/- and tuition fee of Rs. 5,000/- vide receipts of Annexures P-37 and P-38 and only fhereafter, No Dues certi&cate was issued and form offinal examination was also issued to the petitioner, which was submitted by him on 11-7-2007 and, receipt offhe same is Annexurc P-39. 9. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, vehemently argued that the parents of fhe petitioner were ready and wUling to pay the ti.iition fee for 1st year as well as 2nd year BHMS course with the College admimstration. Their intention to pay is reflected from fhe fact fhat they deposited the fee through cheque with the CoUege admmistration, however first time the cheques were torai and subsequent postdated cheques issued by the petitioner were accepted but fhey were presented before the concemed branch before fhe due date, as a result of which, they bounced. He fiirther subimtted fhat after ,^-,^^^ l:r-€'~'31^ ^-,. '" ^. 1 ":<v£^^ iS o ^ " ^ssys^s:'^0 ^ clearing 1st year, titie petitioner was ready to deposit the fee for 2nd year as well as balance for fhe 1st year and cheque was issued by the petitioner towards the same. The petitioner was also issued exainination form, which was duly filled tn by the petitioner and submitted wifh the CoUege along wlth the exammation fee, however, the CoUege authorities wifhout any notice to the petitioner or her parents, did not fomrard her examination form to fhe University and informed the petitioner onfy at tfae tune of exam.uiation, as a resiilt of whlch, fhe petitioner could not appear in fhe 2nd year BHMS coiirse in the session 2006- 07. Under the above compelling circumstances, fhe petitioner decided for changng of institution and appUed for admission to the respondent No. 10-College, however, the respondent No. 6 did not issue noobjection certiflcate and also did not retum her orignal testimonials, which were deposited by fhe petitioner at the ttme of admission on fhe pretext of non-payment oftuition fee and because of non-issuance of no objection certificate, fhe respondents No. 4 and 5 did not issue migration certificate to the petitioner, ivhich was necessary for seeking admission in fhe College of respondent No. 10 under the rcspondent No. 3-Uiuversity. Because of omission and commission on the part of the respondents No. 4 and 5, the future of fhe petitioner has been nuned. In these drcumstances, she is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition. On the ofher hahd, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearu^ for the respondent No. 4 and 5 and Shri Panksg Shrivastava, leanaed counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7 vehementfy argued that ftnm the dociuuents filed by the respondents, it is manifestly clear fhat fhe petitioner dld not pay tuition fee, either for the 1st year or for the 2nd year BHMS course with fhe Colleee authorities. She was permitted to appear in fee 1st year BHMS course, despite she had not paid the requisite fee. She was also atlowed to appear in fhe supplementary examlnation and after faUing in the flrst supplementary examination, she was again allowed to appear in fhe 2nd supplementary examination by the College bonafidefy hoping that fhe petitioner shaU be paying fhe tuition fee, however she did not pay the tultion fee and in fhese circumstances, the CoUege administration was left wifh no option but to detain her from. appeanng in the exainination and did not forward her exammation form. The respondent Guru Ghasidas Universily tried to settle fhe dispute fhrough mutual negoUation and caUed a meeting to resolve the dispute, however, since the parents of the petitioner were adamant in not depositing the tuition fee, the matter could not be settled. Refemng to Clause 8 offhe University Ordnance Part II, it was veheiaently argued fhat fhe Principal of the CoUege m.ay detaui a regular student from. takii^ examination, if he does not pay outstandmg college ,,^sSa^ /1"^\ ^¥^A-,_, u 1^1 ^\ t%. ^ 13 .^y-..^...^^ '"-^^s^s dues. It was furfher argued that since fhe petitioner has failed to clear the dues even till date, the College could not issue no objection certificate to the petitloner and also could not retiim fhe orieinal testimonials. Refemne to fhe retum of the respondents No. 6 and 7, it was further contended that fhe respondent Gollege was ready and wUling to allow the petitioner to appear in the exaiaination, which was to be held in the month of May, 2008 provided she agyees to pay the balance fee in installments. They were also ready to retum the original docunients and issue no objection certificate, in case Che petitioner pays the balance dues. 11. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe partles. 12. From. fhe averments of fhe respective parties and documents filed by them, fhe dispute maiiity appears to be non-payinent of tultion fee by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that fhe rcspondent No. 6 is an unaided college and it manages its affairs from the tultion fee coUected from. the students. The respondents tn their retum have made serious allegations that the petitioner did not pay entire tiiition fee for the 1st year BHMS course, even then she was pennitted to appear in the maui exam.ination as well as 2 supplem.entary exaininations by fhe respondent CoUege. The above pleadtng has not been controverted by fhe petitioner in her rejoinder. Clause 8 of the University 14 Ordnance part II empowera the Principal of the CoUege to detsun a regular student from. taldng examination, if he does .not pay outstandtng college dues. Clause 8 is reproduced as under- "(S) TTie Prindpal of a CoHege or the Head ofthe University Tecuchmg Department or School of Studies may detcdn a regukcr canduiate ftmn taking an exanvnation ifhe does not pay aut standing coUege dues, or does not retum the coUege property and cdl the artudes and uniform issued to him for Sports or NCC or does notpay the cost thereofm case ofloss, by the 15fh of February precedmg ths exambiation or if the conduct of the student has been unsatisfacton/ between the time ofsubrmssion of his application form to the Registrar for ddrmssion to the excmdncctwn and the dccte of the com.mencement ofthe excmwiation. 13. Apart from fhe above, it is also evident that fhe petitioner appears to be irregular in payment of fhe tuition fee in the 2nd Year BHMS course. The respondents have claimed fhat fhe cheque issued by the parents of fhe petitioner bounced on fhe 1st occasion; fhereforc, they did not accept payment of tuition fee through cheque for 2nd year BHMS course whereas the petitioner has clamied that fhe cheque bounced because it was deposited before its due date. However, no document has been filed by fhe petitioner to show fhat the cheque was retum because it was presented before the due date. From the documents ^:.^'^^ 15 I..; filed ty fhe respondent CoUege, it is also observed that students m general were notified by the CoTlege adiumistTation fhat fhey are to deposit tuition fee wifhin a particular tmie, failing which, fhey shall not be permitted to appear in fhe examination. Apart fl-om the above, personal notice was also sent to fhe parents of the petitioner. The College administration was although ready and wflling to allow the petitioner to appear m. tfae exammation to be held in fhe month of May, 2008 provided, she pays the dues even in installments. However, the petitioner instead of paying fhe tuition fee, has opted for changng Ifae institution. 14. In fhe aforesaid scenario, this Court is of the considered opinlon fhat the petitioner is not entiUed for any reliefas claimed by her in the instant petition. 15. The petition is accordir^ly disniissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge