High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1984/2021

Gautam Kumar v. Indian Institute Of Mass Communication

2026-03-30Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh4 pages

$~62 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Mr Anurag Ojha with Mr Vipul Kumar, Advs.

versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MASS COMMUNICATION ..Respondent Through:

Adv Shivam Dwivedi Dr. Monika Arora (CGSC), Mr. Subhrdeep Saha (Adv.), Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Adv.), Ms.

Anamika Thakur (Adv.), Mr. Abhinav Verma(Adv.) Mr. Neeraj (SPC) Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 30.03.2026 1.

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus thereby quashing the impugned notice dated 28.07.2020/13.06.2020 (Annexure No. P-1) along with policy for 10 % annual fee hike and further mandamus commanding the Respondents to examine the matter of course fee structure again, in a transparent manner with proper representation from each and every stakeholders..." 2.

Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is challenging the arbitrary and illegal fees charged by the respondent Institute. He states that there is no justification or basis for the respondent Institute to charge the 10% annual fee hike. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

It is also stated that the impugned notices dated 28.07.2020 and 13.06.2020 of the petitioner are illegal, malafide, arbitrary and consequently, need to be set aside.

Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent, has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Institute and more particularly paragraph No. 7 of the same, which reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph No. 7 shows that the petitioners are students of the academic year 2019-2020 and were fully aware of the fee structure before they took admission. 6.

During the entire period of their academic education i.e. one year, there was no change in the fee structure of the respondent Institute. 7.

Hence, I am in agreement with the stance of the respondent that the petitioner, being fully aware of the concerned fee structure and having taken admission, cannot subsequently challenge the same.

Additionally, the circulars dated 28.07.2020 and 13.06.2020 have also undergone judicial scrutiny in W.P.(C) 15009/2021, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- "4. From a perusal of the above-noted averments, it is apparent that fees of the course was notified to the public by Respondent-Institute vide its prospectus and was not increased thereafter. Petitioner enrolled in the course being fully aware of applicable fees and thus, he cannot refuse to pay the same. In absence of any other ground, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the fee is 'excessive' and set aside the impugned notice dated 13th June, 2020. Thus, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

entire petition is misconceived and cannot be entertained." 8.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

In case the petitioner's degree / mark sheet/ certificate has not been released due to non-payment of fees, the petitioner shall visit the office of the respondent Institute, pay the requisite fees (respondent shall not charge any interest) and the relevant degree / mark sheet/ certificate shall be released accordingly.

10.

The petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 30, 2026 / (MS) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.