Jayant Lunawat v. Shamsher Bahadur Saxena College Of Law

CWP-19965-2025 (O&M) 1 202+157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19965-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2026 JAYANT LUNAWAT ....Petitioner

Versus

SHAMSHER BAHADUR SAXENA COLLEGE OF LAW AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR *****

Present:

Mr. Vikrant Kumar Pujara, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate and Ms. Sunanda, Advocate for respondent No.4.

***** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral) CM-6854-CWP-2026 Application has been filed for exemption from personal appearance of the Principal of respondent No.1/College.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Main case 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that respondent No.1/college illegally accepted tuition fee from him to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and has spoiled his two years in the process. The case of the petitioner is that he having completed his graduation applied for admission to 3year LL.B. course with respondent No.1/college. The first respondent is a law

CWP-19965-2025 (O&M) 2 college affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was deposited towards tuition fee by the petitioner. It is thereafter that respondent/college has not been permitted to continue with the course, since requisite permissions were not available with the college for admitting the students to 3-year law course. Prayer accordingly has been made to direct the respondents to refund the amount and also award damages to the petitioner. 2.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1/college stating that the University had provisionally permitted it to admit students on account of which the admission was offered to the present petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner himself did not intend to proceed with the course and had requested the college not to process his admission. It is at a later point of time that the petitioner informed the college that he intends to pursue with the course. Since requisite number of admissions were already affected by then, as such the college attempted to get the petitioner adjusted elsewhere, but that also failed. It is also stated that respondent No.1/college has refunded the sum of Rs.20,000/- which had been received from the petitioner.

3.

Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find that respondent No.1/college in the relevant academic session was not authorized to admit students, yet it proceeded to accept tuition fee of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner. The parties are at issue as to whether this amount of Rs.20,000/- has been refunded to the petitioner or not. However, we find that the action of respondent/college in accepting tuition fee from the petitioner without it being entitled to admit such student was an unauthorized act on its part, what was not proper. Though, it is stated that a sanction letter came from the University later, but on the date of admission, undisputedly the respondent/college was not

CWP-19965-2025 (O&M) 3 entitled to admit students. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner to be adequately compensated by respondent No.1/college has to be accorded consideration.

4.

On the asking of the Court, learned counsel for respondent No.1/college has obtained instructions and states that the college would be willing to compensate the petitioner by paying him Rs.70,000/-. This would settle all claims of the petitioner against respondent No.1/college. The proposal so made sounds reasonable, and the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be willing to accept.

5.

In the light of the above consent of the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that respondent No.1/college shall pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of 2 weeks from today. On such payment, the petitioner shall withdraw all civil and criminal proceedings that he has initiated against the respondent No.1/college. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) APRIL 30, 2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No