Decided on July 09,1997



M.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.)The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. He has started certain training courses from 1992 and that its registered Head Office is at Dev Paul Chowk, Hamirpur Sujanpur, Tanni Devi. It has got plans of expansion in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner applied to the Director, Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension, Himachal Pradesh University on 14 -3 -1997 for recognition pf their courses run by them, The Assistant Director of the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension sent a reply to the petitioners Managing Director on 14 -3 -1997 that the matter was being considered by the Centre and a decision will be taken soon in the meeting of the Advisory Committee to be held on 20 -3 -1997. On 25 -3 -1997 a notification was sent to the petitioner by the Assistant Director of the Centre for Adult Continuing Education and Extension to the effect that in the Resolution No. 8 passed in the meeting held on 20 -3 -1997. The petitioners proposal to start Computer Course under continuing education programme was approved. It was also stated in the notification that the fee structure of the course will be Rs. 600 per student per month, out of which Rs. 200 per student per month should be given to the department by the petitioner. The communication is found in Annexure P -4. It is seen that there is a blank in the most crucial portion of the communication The relevant part of the communication read thus :
"The Advisory Committee of Centre for Adult, Continuing Education and Extension, H.P.U. vide its resolution No. 8 meeting held on 20 -3 -1997 has been pleased to start computer courses under continuing education programme to be organised by Noble Informatic Training System Pvt. Ltd. Hamirpur."

(2.)Inspite of the said blank in the notification the petitioner was furnished with a certificate of affiliation issued by the Assistant Director of the Centre on the very same day. But subsequently by communication dated 29 -5 -1997, the petitioner was informed by the same Assistant Director that the inspection Committee visited the institution to check the infrastructure facilities and found that the infrastructure facilities were inadequate and the staff engaged was not qualified Consequently, the permission granted to the petitioner was withdrawn The bank draft sent by the petitioner on 23 -5 -1997 for Rs. 3,400 was also being returned along with the said communication. The petitioner was informed that the University will not be responsible for the students already admitted or being admitted by the petitioner to the course and the petitioner was directed not to use the name of the University in the Course being run by it. It is further stated that the Centre may review its decision if proper facilities were created and the qualified staff is engaged and the petitioner may inform the students accordingly.
(3.)Aggrieved by the said communication dated 29 -5 -1997, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, challenging the validity of the withdrawal of the permission granted. In the petition, it is staled by the petitioner that after getting the affiliation, the petitioner got involved in installing Computers and other ancillary things to provide the facility of Computer to the students and thus installed 10 Computers at Hamirpur, five at Sujanpur and launched a new Centre at Mandi by installing six Computers. It is further stated that each Computer and its installation is costing about Rs 40,000 and thus the petitioner had invested a sum of Rs. 10 lacs besides having rented accommodation and other furniture. The petitioner contends that it is not open to the respondents to withdraw the permission already granted, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner has acted upon the same and spent a huge amount for installing the Computers for running the course.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.