High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 PAT CK 2868

Usha Devi vs The Vice Chancellor Of Jai Prakash University & Ors.

Patna High Court · Decided on 16 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harish Kumar, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9136 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 339 words

Heard the parties.

2.

The petitioner claims herself to be one of the founder members of the college and the President of Vikas Sansthan, having registration no. 2836 of 2008–2009, has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to refund an amount of Rs. 6,55,000/-which was deposited as a reserve amount for establishing Rajendra Prasad Yadav Degree College at Chapraitha, Chainwa, Chapra, Saran.

3.

It is submitted that the aforesaid amount was deposited for inquiry fee for every subject. However, despite the amount having been deposited before the Registrar of J. P. University, Saran at Chapra, the college of the petitioner has not been established and the amount, as aforesaid, has been kept with the University since 2013. It is further contended that despite the best effort to run the College, in question, the same could not be run, as the University has not given any affiliation and permission for running the college. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get the amount back with statutory interest, is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Advocate for J.P. University submits that the averments made in the writ petition are required to be examined from the records of the University, for which he prays for a short adjournment.

5.

Having considered the nature of the grievance and the averments made in the writ petition, this Court, instead of keeping the matter pending, directs the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the necessary documents, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

6.

In case, such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered in the light of the relevant records and bring to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

7.

It is made clear that if the contention of the petitioner is found to be true, in such circumstances, the amount must be refunded within a further period of eight weeks.

8.

With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of.