Priyank Tanwar vs M D University

HEARD learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents.

FACTS briefly put are that petitioner had qualified test being eligible for admission in LL.B. (Professional) course for the Session 2001-2002 and requisite admission fee was deposited on 16.7.2001. He also qualified for LL.B. five years course at Kurukshetra University. He accordingly sought withdrawal of admission fee, which was not accepted by respondent University. Aggrieved petitioner knocked door of Consumer Fora, filing complaint and District Forum having accepted complaint directed respondent to refund fee of Rs. 16,969 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit. However, when matter was brought in appeal by respondent, the State Commission having taken notice of decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC)=VII (2009) SLT 109, Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003, which held that Education Boards and Universities were not ''service provider'', accepting appeal, dismissed complaint with direction to parties to approach Court of competent jurisdiction.

GROUSE of petitioner was that though proceeding was fixed on 12.1.2010, State Commission without issuance of notice to petitioner, preponed date and accepted appeal on 9.9.2009. Though in view of ratio of decision of Hon''ble Apex Court that Education is not a service and College and Universities were not service provider, petitioner did not have a good cause for acceptance of complaint, I do not appreciate preponing dates by State Commission without notice to petitioner. Matter could have been remitted to State Commission, but in view of decision of Hon''ble Apex Court when complaint itself was not maintainable before Fora below, no useful purpose can be served and in that view of matter, there being no merit, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.