C.W.P. No.13172 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.13172 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 25.5.2011 Sandeep Kumar Yadav PETITIONER VERSUS Director, Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh and another ... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Salil Sagar, Additional A.G. Punjab. Shri Munish Inder Singh for Shri S.S.Bhinder, Advocate. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner had applied for the Course of Mechanical Engineering in the College of respondent No.2. Initially, his particulars were checked and he was granted the admission. He deposited the fee consequent thereto, but it transpired that the petitioner had actually failed in the subject of Mathematics which was one of the compulsory subjects and thus he was not entitled to take admission. The said admission was cancelled. The petitioner then made an application for refund of fee which has been declined as a result of which the C.W.P. No.13172 of 2010 -2- instant petition has been filed. The respondents have filed their response to the petition and have stated in the preliminary objection No.2 that the petitioner was required to fill up the form online on the Website of the College and as against question No.8, there was a question whether the incumbent had cleared English, Science and Math. in 10th and the petitioner responded to this question by saying “Yes”. However, it transpired that the petitioner failed in Math. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if this information was incorrect, the respondents themselves had checked the form and they were equally at fault. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entirely incorrect, but the fact remains that the petitioner who failed in the Math., had himself attempted to mislead the respondents by giving wrong information in the first place, which speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner. He cannot now claim equity to seek refund especially when the application for refund was made in January, 2010 much after the period stipulated for seeking such a refund which was prescribed as 30 days after the counselling was over. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that that he had applied in January 2010, but this fact is denied by the respondents. This raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is held to be without merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) May 25, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO C.W.P. No.13172 of 2010 -3-