Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATION COLLEGES (SELF versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Association of Education Colleges (Self v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-8925-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 496 (2 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C.M.No.21263 of 2005 and

C.W.P.No.8925 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 02, 2006.

Association of Education Colleges (Self

Financing) of Haryana (Regd.) .... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.R.K.Malik, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Dr.Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate

with Mr.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate

for the respondents.

Mr.Sidharth Batra, AAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT :

In the main writ petition, two following prayers were made by the petitioner :-

"iv) a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to fix the same fee structure of all self financing college of education in the State of Haryana whether affiliated to M.D.University or Kurukshetra University from the session 2005- 06 as provided in the self financing institutions affiliated to M.D.University;

v) a further writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to the State of Haryana to constitute a Committee for determining the fee structure in the same analogy as constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA PAI's case for Medical Colleges/Engineering Colleges and further direction be issued to determine the fee structure C.M.No.21263 of 2005 and : 2 :

C.W.P.No.8925 of 2005

for the session 2005-06 onwards."

It is admitted case between the parties that State of Haryana has constituted a Committee for determining the fee structure, in the course of B.Ed being taught by them, in the self financing colleges, in the State of Haryana. The aforesaid Committee had also submitted its report dated October 19, 2005. A copy of the said report has been appended by the respondents along with their written statement.

The prayer made in the present application is that the Committee had taken a decision that the aforesaid fee structure recommended by the Committee, would be applicable only for the next ensuing session. In these circumstances, a grievance has been made that the Committee should have made the aforesaid fee determined for the present session, qua which the grievance has been made by the petitioner- association, in the present writ petition.

Shri R.K.Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- applicant association says that the present writ petition itself be disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner-association to approach the aforesaid Committee by filing a detailed representation and making a prayer therein that the fee structure, recommended by the said Committee, be made applicable for the current session as well. Consequently, he says that the writ petition be disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and a direction be issued to the Committee to consider the aforesaid representation by passing a speaking order.

Dr.Balram Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Kurukshetra University has no objection to this limited prayer of the petitioner, being granted.

In view of the agreement, between the learned counsel for both the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-association to file a detailed representation to the Fee Structure Committee making the claim, which the petitioner-association has made before this Court. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner- association within a period of three weeks from today, then the Fee Structure Committee shall examine the matter in accordance with law and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date, the C.M.No.21263 of 2005 and : 3 :

C.W.P.No.8925 of 2005

aforesaid representation is received.

The Civil Miscellaneous Application as well as the main Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

February 02, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.