Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University & Ors. vs Sudiep Shrivastava & Ors.
- SCC(2010) 15 SCC 556
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. When a fee committee appointed by a court has prescribed fees for particular categories of students (such as payment seat holders) and such prescribed fees are not challenged by any party either before the high court or the supreme court, those fees become final and binding and must be paid by students who were admitted under that category. 2. Where students admitted against payment seats have paid fees in excess of the amount prescribed by the fee committee, the institution is required to refund the excess amount to those students. 3. Where the state government, as a party to the proceedings, makes a statement before the court that students admitted against payment seats in a particular academic year should be reclassified and treated as free seat students, that concession becomes binding and those students are liable only for the fee applicable to free seats, with any excess fees previously paid being adjustable against their dues.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SUDIEP SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH C.A.NO.2857 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.3764/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2858 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5479/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2859 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.7046/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2860 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5510/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2861 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5580/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2862 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5582/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2863 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5584/2006
WITH C.A.NO.2864 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5585/2006
AND WITH C.A.NO.2865 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)No.5636/2006
ORDER
Applications for exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment are allowed.
Leave granted.
The Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences is a Medical College in
Bilaspur in the state of Chhattisgarh. This college is affiliated to the Guru Ghasidas
University, who is the appellant in the Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition
(C)No.24539/2005. The dispute in these appeals is regarding 2
quantum of fee payable by the students. Some of the students had taken seats against
payment seats and some other students got admission against free seats. The students, who
had secured admission against payment seats, were initially directed to pay a fee of
Rs.2,50,000/-. Thereafter the Fee Committee appointed by the High Court fixed the fee for
payment seats at Rs.1,90,000/-. The appellant college demanded the fee of Rs.1,90,000/-
from the students who got admission against the payment seats. This is opposed by the
students on the ground that they are meritorious students and they should have got admission
against the free seats and not the payment seats, and they are liable to pay only Rs.34,500/-,
which is the fee levied from the students, who got admission against free seats. Learned
counsel for the students also contended that in the institution there shall be only one rate of
fee payable by the entire students.
We considered the rival contentions of the parties.
As the Fee Committee prescribed the fee of Rs.1,90,000/- for the payment
seats and the same was not challenged by any of the parties neither before the High Court nor
before this Court, the same has become final and the fee fixed by the Fee Committee shall be
paid by the students who got admission for the academic years 2003-04 and 2004-05 against
the payment seats.
We are told that some of the students who got admission against payment
seats had paid Rs.2,50,000/-. The college is directed to refund the excess fee received from
these students.
As regards some other students who got admission in the year 2005-06, the
State Government has, in its affidavit at para 6 has stated that out of them 39 students who
got admission against payment seats and since now they have been treated as students for
free seats, they are liable to pay only Rs.34,500/-. We record the said statement. The excess
fee, if any, paid by these students may be adjusted.
3
The appeals are disposed of accordingly and the judgment of the High Court is
set aside. No costs.
...............CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
.................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
NEW DELHI;
27TH APRIL, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free