AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
The petitioner before this Court is a private institute, which inter alia, runs a course a B. Tech. course. For the academic session 2012-13, according to the petitioner, the tuition fee was Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per annum, but it is an admitted case that what was taken from the students was only Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and the fee towards sport, internet technology and Personal Effective and Employability Enhancement Fee was waived. The students have taken admission in the first year, completed the studies and thereafter got admission in the second year. The same fee structure was continued for the second year as well. It is again an admitted case that for the four years of B.Tech. course (which is split into eight semesters) the fee structure is the same i.e. Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only).
When the same reduced fee structure was charged from the students in the second year as well i.e. Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per annum, the students had a genuine expectation in fact a legitimate expectation that for the next year onwards the same fee would be charged. But the institute insisted on payment of the fee, which was Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) for the third year. The students of the institute in turn moved an objection before the Ombudsman, who gave its decision in their favour and held that the demand for raised fee made by the institute was not justified. Aggrieved, the institute has filed the present petitions before this Court.
There are many private students impleaded as respondents i.e. the affected students. This is again an admitted case that by now all of them have completed their studies from the institute.
The Ombudsman/Lokpal has been appointed by the Government notification to look into the disputes between the students on the one hand and the management on the other hand, which includes the fee structure. There is no question on the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman/Lokpal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that they are not pressing the fee structure as that would be futile and now the only academic question is left before this Court.
The writ petitions are therefore disposed of with the direction that in future the Ombudsman though would always be at liberty to look into the matter including the matter regarding the fee structure, but while doing so he shall take into consideration whether the fee demanded by the institute is as per the approved fee structure i.e. what has been approved by the Fee Regulatory Committee of the students, whether the students were well apprised of the fee structure at the time when they took admission, any catalogue of such fee has been given and there is no change of fee during midstream. Suffice it to say that principles of natural justice would be followed in its letter and spirit.
With the observations as above, the writ petitions stand disposed of.