Judgment · High Court · 2009

The Governing Body of the institution was constituted on 16.8.2005 wit h the persona named in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The Governing Body wa s also approved in the subsequent meetings of the institution. On receipt of the permission and recognition letters from the authoritie s, the institution started imparting B.Ed. course from the academic session 20 06-07. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that an in cident had occurred on 27.11.2008, when some persons trespassing into the premis es of the institution, took away some furnitures, books, records etc by force. The petitioner-institution made representation to the authorities to do the need ful in the matter. A new Governing Body was constituted on 13.12.2008. Such constitution w as as per the guidelines given the University and the University Grants Commissi on. The constitution of the Governing Body has also been approved. It appears that the persons who had trespassed into the premises of the petitioner institut ion and took away the records, documents, furnitures etc. started functioning fr om another place and made applications to the authorities stating that their in stitution is the real one and not the one being run by the petitioner. However, by Annexure-H notification dated 28.1.2009, the Director of College Development Council of Dibrugarh Univesity notified that in pursuance of the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the ins titution being run by the petitioner located at West Milan Nagar, Bye Lane (cid:28)O (cid:29), P.O. C.R. Building, Dibrugarh is the recognized institution and not the other o ne. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner instituti on is that the name of the institution could not have been omitted from the afo rementioned Annexure-I information regarding CET and the B.Ed. Course of Dibruga rh University, 2009. The university has filed its counter affidavit basically urging two grou nds to justify exclusion of the petitioner institution from the aforesaid list. The first ground urged is that since there is a dispute between the two institu tions established under the same name ands style, it is difficult for the univer sity to recognize any one of them. The second ground urged is that the petiti oner institution having not deposited necessary fee for according permission for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the permission for admission etc. could not be granted. The petitioner has denied the aforesaid two contentions raised by the u niversity in their counter affidavit. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is the stand of the petitioner that the university itself having recognized the petitioner institution by its Annexure-H notification dated 28.1.2009, the same vary university cannot now resile back from the said position. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid notification dated 28.1.2009 was issued pursuant to the enquiry condu cted by the committee constituted by none other than the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrug arh University. The said committee examined the documents etc. of both the inst itutions and opined that it is the petitioner institution which is legally vali d institution. As regards the second ground of non-deposit of required fee for granting permission, it is the case of the petitioner that although permission fee was deposited for the session 2007-08 and was accepted by the university, but no or der to that effect was passed. As regards the permission for the session 2008- 09, it is the case of the petitioner that although the institution had applied f or permission to deposit fee vide its letter dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure-N to th e affidavit-in-reply), but no such permission was granted. However, by Annexur e-M communication dated 9.6.2009 addressed to the petitioner by the Deputy Regi strar (Academic), Dibrugarh University, the approval was conveyed for admission of 51 students for the academic session 2008-09. Thus, it is the stand of the petitioner that the university authority having accorded approval for admissio n of 51 students for the session 2008-09, cannot say that the permission is not accordable for non-deposit of required fee. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for th e petitioner submits that unless and until the permission is granted to deposit fee, the petitioner institution cannot deposit such fee. Moreover, the petition er institution vide its Annexure-N letter dated 26.12.2008 sought for permission of the university authority to deposit fee, but no response has been shown to i t. As regards the permission fee to be deposited for the session 2008-09, i t is the stand of the petitioner that the petitioner institution is ready to dep osit requisite fee at any time. It is the case of the petitioner that since the stalemate was created because of the aforesaid happenings, the petitioner inst itution in spite of its desire to deposit fee for the session 2009-10 could not deposit the same. It has also been contended that although the permission for admission of the students for the session 2008-09 had been accorded but because of non-acceptance of permission fee, the petitioner institution could not depos it fee for the session 2009-10. Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the university submits that the pet itioner institution having not deposited permission fee for the session 2008-09 and so also, for the session 2009-10, cannot make any grievance if its name was included in the impugned list. According to Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for th e university, the petitioner has failed to discharge its timely action in the ma tter and thus, the university cannot be blamed for the situation in which the p etitioner institution is in. The university itself recognized the petitioner institution by the afor ementioned Annexure-H notification dated 28.1.2009. The notification was issued pursuant to the report furnished by the committee which was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the university. The university itself having recognized the petitioner institution by the said notification, in the normal course, it was t he expectation of the petitioner institution that the permission fee for the se ssion 2008-09 and 2009-10 will be accepted by the university authority. This wa s more so, when the university authority itself by its Annexure-M letter dated 9 .6.2009 accorded approval for admission of 51 students for the session 2008-09. Having regard to the action taken by the university authority itself, there is n o manner of doubt that the petitioner institution was recognized for the session 2008-09. The requite fee could not be deposited because of non-acceptance of the same by the university. As regards the fee to be deposited for the session 2009-10, it is the specific case of the petitioner that it is ready to deposit f ee at any time. The other institution, which wanted to have recognition of the universit y in place of the petitioner institution, had instituted a civil suit and the sa id institution also filed writ petition being W.P. (C) No.390/2009. Both in the suit and the writ petition, the prayer was to recognize the said institution as legally valid one and to set aside and quash the aforesaid notification dated 2 9.1.2009 by which the petitioner institution was recognized by the university. The writ petition has been withdrawn by the said institution today. It is submi tted that the suit has also been withdrawn by the said institution. In view of the above, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respo ndent-university authority to consider the case of the petitioner consistently w ith the observations made above. The petitioner institution shall approach the university authority by 10th August, 2009 for depositing requisite permission f ee for the session 2008-09 and 2009-10. Such approach being made by the repres entative of the petitioner institution, the university authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and consistently with the observations made abov e. It is expected that there will be no further occasion for any dispute between the parties, avoidance of which will also be in the greater interest of the stu dent community. When the matter was taken up on the last occasion i.e. 28th July, 2009, it was provided that in the event the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the university would extend the time limit for admission suitably. In view of this order passed today, I direct the university authority to extend the admission schedule by at least 15 (fifteen) days from 10th August, 2009 f or the petitioner institution.