Selaqui Academy Of Higher Education Campus Chakrata Road And Another vs Lokpal Uttarakhand Technical University Suddhowala Deharadun And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14.06.2019, and a modification is sought of the order dated 08.05.2019 passed earlier in the writ petition.

The appellants herein filed the present writ petition questioning the order passed by the Lokpal on 03.03.2014 and 25.04.2014, whereby they were directed not to recover additional fees from certain students pursuing B.Tech. courses in their institution. As a result, the unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions completed their B.Tech. course on payment of the reduced fee, and have since left for their respective places of residence in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, New Delhi, etc.

As notices in the writ petition could not be served on the unofficial respondents, and as these students were located all over the country, the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 08.05.2019, directed the appellants-writ petitioners to take steps by substitutive mode of service by issuing publication in a National Daily News paper, having circulation throughout the country, for affecting service on the unofficial respondents. The publication of notice was to be done in one national daily newspaper which was of wide circulation.

Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, would submit that the cost of publication, in a national newspaper such as the Times of India, is Rs.4.5 lacs per publication; and, since there are two appeals, the expenditure to be incurred for such publication would exceed Rs.9.0 Lacs. Learned counsel would submit that this Court may consider permitting the appellants-writ petitioners to cause publication in the local newspapers at the respective places, or to direct the Registry, on deposit of the prescribed publication charges by the appellants-writ petitioners, to take steps to cause publication.

We see no reason to accede to either of the requests. No rule, which requires the High Court Registry, to cause paper publication, for effecting service of notices on the unofficial respondents, has been brought to our notice. It is for the appellants-writ petitioners, who have approached this Court and have sought relief, to take necessary steps to cause service of notices, in the writ petitions, on the unofficial respondents. For grant of permission to the appellants-writ petitioners, to cause publication in the local newspapers of the respective States, this Court would be required to first ascertain whether or not the local newspapers, in which the appellants-writ petitioners seek to cause publication, have wide circulation in the area. Since the unofficial respondents are spread over several States, this exercise would be required to be undertaken for each of the States. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing publication in a national newspaper having circulation all over the country.

Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, would then submit that since the unofficial respondents have completed their B.Tech course, on payment of lesser tuition fee in view of the order of the Lokpal, it would be extremely difficult for the appellants to now recover the differential fees from them by filing Suits at different States; and, even if they were to succeed later in the writ petition, they may not be in any position to recover the differential amount due from them. Learned counsel would submit that this Court may consider recording the submission of the appellants-writ petitioners that they would not seek recovery of the differential amount due from the unofficial respondents in these two appeals; and, instead, permit the appellants-writ petitioners to confine their challenge in the writ petition only to the order of the Lok Pal so that, in case they were to succeed in the writ petition later, they would be in a position to recover the actual tuition fees from students, studying in their institution, in future.

In the light of the submission now made before us, by Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, that they do not intend to recover the differential amount from the unofficial respondents in these two appeals, and they intend confining their prayer in the writ petition only to the validity of the orders passed by the Lokpal, suffice it to permit the appellants-writ petitioners to file a modification application before the learned Single Judge seeking deletion of the unofficial respondents from the array of respondents in the writ petitions, and for recall of the order dated 08.05.2019. Since no relief would now be sought against the unofficial respondents, we have no reason to doubt that the learned Single Judge, before whom the matter is listed tomorrow, will consider granting the appellants-writ petitioners reasonable time to move a modification application for modification/recall of the order dated 08.05.2019 in terms of the undertaking, furnished on their behalf, by their counsel.

The special appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of the prescribed charges.