S.VIVEK STALIN vs Bharathidasan University

ALL these original petitions have come up before us today for admission.

THE individual complainants in these original actions are applicants seeking admission in professional courses announced to be commenced by the opposite party-Bharathidasan University in the academic year 1998. THE individual complainants in the various actions would allege that because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bharathidasan University, one full academic year was wasted, in the sense of the complainants not joining the course and pursuing higher studies. The individual complainants in all these actions would claim compensation in a quantified amount for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which caused them untold sufferings, agony, hardship and torture besides waste of one academic year.

Alleging the factors as above, the complainants in the individual actions knocked at the doors of this Commission for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaints.

THE individual complainants entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice, viz., M/s. S.S. Vasudevan and A. Arul Rayan. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. A. Arul Rayan. The said learned Counsel, with all vehemence and force, contended that the matters pertaining to education shall fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act").

IT is not as if such an argument has arisen for the first time before superior Courts of jurisdiction. The sordid fact is, arguments of such a nature were raised before a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case reported in The Registrar, University of Madras & Anr. v. Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, New Delhi & Ors., 1995 WLR 246 (DB). The Division Bench in that case held that : "IT may be that unscrupulous man might have attempted to make a business out of education and convert the institutions into teaching shops. But the Indian Legislature has never attempted to do so; not has the judiciary ever allowed it. Courts in this country have always been vigilant in weeding out the ''masked phantoma'' established as business ventures from the field of education."

Thus, it is crystal clear in the ratio decidendi of the Division Bench that the educational institutions are not falling within the purview of the Act. To our knowledge, there is no direct contra decision of the Apex Court of this country till today though there are several decisions of other State Commissions and other High Courts holding contra view to the Division Bench of the Madras High Court as stated above. The aforesaid decision rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is definitely binding on us and we, on our part, with all respects and reverence, bow our head to the said decision. All the original petitions, viz., O.P. Nos. 90 to 98/2000, therefore, deserve to be rejected in limine.

BEFORE parting with these matters, we observe that it is very well open to the individual complainants to knock at the doors of the proper Forum for necessary relief as against the opposite party if they are so advised in accordance with law.

IN fine, all the Original Petition Nos. 90 to 98/2000 are rejected in limine. Complaint rejected in limine.