# Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-19
- **Bench:** F.I.Rebello, C. J. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajeeth-singh-yadav-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-41910
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C
Sri C.B.Pandey
Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra
Sri S.P.Shukla
Sri S.P.Singh

Constituton
of
India,
Article
226cancellation
of
admission-Lucknow
University issued Brochure as JEE B.Ed
2010-before counseling the candidate
have to deposit Rs. 5000/-after being
selected they have to deposit requisite
confirmation
fees
Rs.
2250/-in
counter-Petitioner/Appellant
not
deposited
any
amount
with
confirmation counter under impression
they have already deposited much
exceed
amount-given admission
by
affiliate
colleges-subsequently
the
Universities
in
second
round
of
counseling fulfilled those vacant seatwhich resulted cancellation of first
counseling
admission-held-arbitrary
illegal deposit of lesser amount toward
confirmation and getting refund the
balance
amount
from
respective
college simple procedural-meritorious
candidate's candidature can not be
canceled-consequential
direction
issued.

Held: Para 15

In our opinion, if a view is taken that
there is a power of cancellation though
the candidates deposits covered the fees
payable then a meritorious candidate
who had been selected and had paid his
fees as the deposit was sufficient, then
such a view would be arbitrary as that
would amount to a penalty to pay
additional fees though fees were not
payable.
A
procedural
requirement
cannot result in denying to a meritorious
candidate the seat if in fact he had
deposited the fees. Further the colleges
to
which
they
were
allotted
had
admitted them. Thus a mere procedural
failure cannot result in depriving the
candidate of the seat. Merely because
after the allotment they had not reported
to the college fee deposition counter,
will
not
result
in
denying
such
candidates their right of completing the
course after being admitted. In our
opinion,
the
admission
would
be
complete the very moment the candidate
was selected and the necessary fees had
been deposited and was admitted to the
college. The requirement in the brochure
was only a procedural requirement to
enable the University to know if there
was any vacancy and the candidate who
was allotted to the college had been
admitted. By any stretch of imagination
it cannot result in holding that because
of
non
completion
of
the
said
requirement,
the
admission
of
the
candidate itself would be non-est. We
reiterate that the moment the students
are
admitted
and
the
respective
University accepts, then their admission
was
complete.
The
action
of
the
University as the allotting authority in
allotting candidates in the second round
against the said purported vacancy
would
thus
be
arbitrary
and
consequential action of the Lucknow
University after the allotment has been
completed, is illegal. The admission
could only be cancelled by the respective
Colleges or the University to which it
was
affiliated
and
that
too
after
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
complying with the principles of natural
justice. If the College had admitted the
students contrary to the procedure in the
brochure, action if and at all is to be
taken against the College authorities and
not the students. There was nothing in
the allotment letter which can result in
holding that if the students had not
reported
to
the
seat
confirmation
counter even though the deposit was in
excess of the fees and the College had
admitted them, then those admissions
were non-est.

## Text

2 All] Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others V. State of U.P.
503
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCNOW DATED: 26.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I.REBELLO,C. J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA,J.

Special Appeal No. - 410 of 2011

Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others 2143
(M/S)2011

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Its Secy. Higher
Education Civil Sectt. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Faisal Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri C.B.Pandey
Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra
Sri S.P.Shukla
Sri S.P.Singh

Constituton
of
India,
Article
226cancellation
of
admission-Lucknow
University issued Brochure as JEE B.Ed
2010-before counseling the candidate
have to deposit Rs. 5000/-after being
selected they have to deposit requisite
confirmation
fees
Rs.
2250/-in
counter-Petitioner/Appellant
not
deposited
any
amount
with
confirmation counter under impression
they have already deposited much
exceed
amount-given admission
by
affiliate
colleges-subsequently
the
Universities
in
second
round
of
counseling fulfilled those vacant seatwhich resulted cancellation of first
counseling
admission-held-arbitrary
illegal deposit of lesser amount toward
confirmation and getting refund the
balance
amount
from
respective
college simple procedural-meritorious
candidate's candidature can not be
canceled-consequential
direction
issued.

Held: Para 15

In our opinion, if a view is taken that
there is a power of cancellation though
the candidates deposits covered the fees
payable then a meritorious candidate
who had been selected and had paid his
fees as the deposit was sufficient, then
such a view would be arbitrary as that
would amount to a penalty to pay
additional fees though fees were not
payable.
A
procedural
requirement
cannot result in denying to a meritorious
candidate the seat if in fact he had
deposited the fees. Further the colleges
to
which
they
were
allotted
had
admitted them. Thus a mere procedural
failure cannot result in depriving the
candidate of the seat. Merely because
after the allotment they had not reported
to the college fee deposition counter,
will
not
result
in
denying
such
candidates their right of completing the
course after being admitted. In our
opinion,
the
admission
would
be
complete the very moment the candidate
was selected and the necessary fees had
been deposited and was admitted to the
college. The requirement in the brochure
was only a procedural requirement to
enable the University to know if there
was any vacancy and the candidate who
was allotted to the college had been
admitted. By any stretch of imagination
it cannot result in holding that because
of
non
completion
of
the
said
requirement,
the
admission
of
the
candidate itself would be non-est. We
reiterate that the moment the students
are
admitted
and
the
respective
University accepts, then their admission
was
complete.
The
action
of
the
University as the allotting authority in
allotting candidates in the second round
against the said purported vacancy
would
thus
be
arbitrary
and
consequential action of the Lucknow
University after the allotment has been
completed, is illegal. The admission
could only be cancelled by the respective
Colleges or the University to which it
was
affiliated
and
that
too
after
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
complying with the principles of natural
justice. If the College had admitted the
students contrary to the procedure in the
brochure, action if and at all is to be
taken against the College authorities and
not the students. There was nothing in
the allotment letter which can result in
holding that if the students had not
reported
to
the
seat
confirmation
counter even though the deposit was in
excess of the fees and the College had
admitted them, then those admissions
were non-est.

(Delivered by Hon'ble F. I.Rebello,C. J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Faisal Ahmad Khan, Advocate, learned
C.S.C., Sri S. P. Shukla, Advocate,
appearing for opposite parties no. 2 & 3,
Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party no. 4, Sri C.
B. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 5 and Dr. Ravi Kumar
Misra, Advocate. Appearing for opposite
party no. 6.

2. This appeal is directed against the
order dated 26th April, 2011 and
consequential
order
dated
19.5.2011
passed in Writ Petition No. 3038 (MS) of
2011 (Ajeet Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P.
& others) leading Writ Petition No. 2143
(MS) of 2011 (Sushma Devi vs. State of
U.P. & others) and other connected
petitions.

This appeal was jointly filed by
seven appellants. The matter came up for
hearing. Learned counsel has prayed that
he may be allowed to pursue the appeal in
respect of appellant no. 1 with liberty to
file independent appeals in respect of
other appellants.

We
grant
liberty
to
the
said
appellants.

3. The appellant was a student who
had applied for B.Ed. Course in 2010-11.
Admission was to be done through a
central agency namely, respondent no. 2
in the light of the law declared by the
Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar. The
respondent no. 2- Lucknow University for
that purpose, issued a brochure known as
"JEE
B.Ed.
2010,
The
Counseling
Procedure". There is no dispute that the
appellant herein, being a meritorious
candidate was called for counseling in the
first round.

4. In terms of the brochure for
selection, issued by the University, the
candidates had to comply with the
following requirements:

"SEAT CONFIRMATION FEES:

1.The allotment letter will be issued
to the candidates the day after the choice
filling has been carried out.

2.All candidates allotted a seat have
to deposit a Seat Confirmation fees at the
SEAT
CONFIRMATION
COUNTER
within four days of choice filling.

3.The amount of seat confirmation
fees will be mentioned on the candidate's
allotment letter.

4.If the candidate fails to deposit the
seat
confirmation
fees
within
the
stipulated time, he/she will have no claim
over the seat any more. (emphasis
supplied)

5.The candidates have to report to
the SEAT CONFIRMATION COUNTER
2 All] Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others V. State of U.P.
505
for confirming their seats even if the
amount of college fees is less than the
advance fees of Rs. 5000.00.

6. Several aided colleges have fees
less than the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00.
Candidates allotted such colleges will be
refunded the remaining amount from the
respective college after they report there."

From these conditions which had to
be complied with, condition no. 4 was
specific inasmuch as if the candidate fails
to deposit the seat confirmation fees
within the stipulated period, it was set out
that such candidate will have no claim
over the seat anymore. The appellant, in
the instant case, did not deposit the seat
confirmation fees at the seat confirmation
counter. Based on the allotment letter, the
institution where he was to be admitted,
granted admission and the appellant is
pursuing his course till date pursuant to
interim orders of this Court.

5. The students who were admitted
in the first round were issued a letter by
the University of Lucknow that the
students had been provisionally allotted a
seat in the College and the candidate had
to deposit the college fee at the
Counselling Centre through a demand
draft in favour of the Finance Officer,
University of Lucknow within three days
and if the amount was not deposited
within the specified time, the allotment
will stand cancelled. Each of the students
had deposited the advance of Rs.5000/-
and the fees claimed were either less or no
fees and based on the letter of allotment
they went to the College and were
admitted. The fact of admission was also
confirmed by the M.J.P. Rohilkhand
University. Factually, however, they had
not deposited the amount which they were
called upon to deposit at the seat
confirmation centre.

6. The respondent no. 1 thereafter
sought to fill the unfilled and/or vacant
seats in the second round. According to
the
respondent
University,
as
the
candidates had not produced the seat
confirmation fees receipt at the Seat
Confirmation Counter in terms of the
brochure and the allotment letter, they had
forfeited the right to admission. The
computer also showed the seat as vacant.
The respondent University, therefore,
made another allotment in respect of those
seats. It is admitted position that when the
candidates from the second round went
for admission, the colleges concerned in
some cases did not admit such students
and in some other cases admitted the
students against the available seats.

Consequent
to
the
selection
authority, the University of Lucknow,
sent a second list of names, for the seats
where allotment was made in the first
round against seats where students had
been admitted, various petitions were
filed before this Court both by candidates
who were earlier admitted and by those
candidates who were allotted in the
second round but not admitted. One of
such petitions is W.P. No. 10188 (MB) of
2010
along
with
other
connected
petitions. We may reproduce the interim
order passed by this Court:

" On 07.10.2010, we had passed the
following order in Writ Petition No.10052
(M/B) of 2010, which on reproduction
reads as under:-

"This writ petition has been filed
against the order of cancellation of
admissions of petitioners, claiming to be
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the B.Ed. students. It is submitted on
behalf of the petitioners that they had
fared quite well in the examination and
had been placed high in merit list.

Thus, they were given admissions by
allotting various colleges where they are
pursuing studies but to their utter
disappointment and dismay the university
authorities which are expected to act like
their guardian have betrayed them by
canceling the admissions without giving
them any opportunity and behind their
back and by giving admissions to such
students who were placed much lower in
comparison to the petitioners in the merit
list.

Hence such an act on the part of
teaching institutions need to be curbed,
and firmly dealt with by nipping it in the
bud.

Hence we direct the Director, C.B.I.
to constitute a team of C.B.I. Officers
who shall enquire into the allegation and
submit a report to the Court. In case they
find that the university authorities have
acted malafide just in order to harass the
students and such acts come within the
definition of offence, the C.B.I. would be
at liberty to register cases against them
and put up charge sheet.

At this stage, Sri S.P. Shukla makes
repeated prayers to give a chance to
University
authorities
to
correct
themselves. Thus, we defer the matter till
Monday (11.10.2010) for giving an
opportunity to the University to review its
decision.
The
impugned
order
of
cancellation shall remain stayed during
the pendency of this writ petition.

Put up on Monday i.e. 11.10.2010."

7. In another petition being no.
Misc. Bench No. 10052 of 2010 this
Court noted that 546 students were
admitted to the B. Ed. Course and it
appears that they had not complied with
the procedure for admission, namely,
obtaining their confirmation, as a result of
that, the body conducting the interview
found that those seats were vacant and
conducted the second round counseling
and allotted the seats accordingly. This
Court further noted that most of 546
students approached this Court and this
Court granted interim order in their
favour. This Court also noted that in the
meantime the other students who were
admitted
in
the
second
round
of
counseling, approached this Court at the
Principal Seat, Allahabad and the learned
Single Judge in several writ petitions
including one Writ -C No. 64060 of 2010,
had directed the colleges in those cases, to
admit the students. In the light of that, the
University was called upon to seek
information. The matter was, however,
adjourned.

Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2010
thereafter was taken up on 28.4.2011 on
which date the University made a
statement that after passing of order by
this Court on 20.10.2010, the University
has not mentioned anything on record,
saying that these candidates are not
eligible to be admitted for the purpose of
pursuing the course, this Court observed:

"Thus, we direct that all the colleges
with
B.Ed.
Courses
to
which
the
candidates have been allocated, shall
allow the candidates to continue with their
study of B.Ed. Course. Moreover, these
candidates are said to be belonging to the
first counseling, therefore, on completion
of their course, they may lay their claim
2 All] Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others V. State of U.P.
507
for
entitlement
to
appear
at
the
examination at the end of the course."

Thus, in so far as about 546 students
who were admitted in the first round, this
Court by interim order protected their
admissions in the institutions in which
they were admitted. Those students are
prosecuting their studies and the term is
about to end.

8. A learned Single Judge at the
Principal Seat at Allahabad in Civil Misc,
Writ Petition No. 536 of 2011, Sachin
Arora & others vs. State of U. P. &
others, delivered on 31.1.2011, observed
that those students who were admitted in
the first round and whose admissions
were canceled or they were not permitted
to pursue their studies on account of hondeposit of fees had no right to continue
and the cancellation of the admission was
upheld. In that petition, there was also a
challenge to the Notification of the
Registrar of the University of Lucknow
dated 28.9.2010. The Court held that there
was no reason to quash the Notification
dated 29th/30th September, 2010.

9.In that notification, it was set out
that -

"Seats in the B.Ed. Program for
academic
session
2010-11,
allotted
through JEE B.Ed. 2011 counseling to all
those candidates who failed to submit the
Allotment Confirmation/Seat Acceptance
Declaration (Balance college fee deposit
receipt) to the colleges, have been
cancelled. Fresh candidates have been
admitted against these seats by the second
round of counseling. The participating
colleges/universities
are
expected
to
verify all the documents submitted by the
candidates.
Names
of
only
those
candidates who report with initial fees
deposit receipt (Rs. 5000.00), Counseling
fee
deposit
receipt
(Rs.
500.00),
Allotment
letter
and
Allotment
confirmation/ Seat acceptance declaration
(Balance college fee deposit receipt) must
be entered in the rolls of the colleges.
Offering seats to any candidates without
duly completed above documents will
amount to giving admission to an
ineligible candidate against the rules
specifically formulated for JEE B.Ed.
2010 by competent authorities. The onus,
in all such cases, would solely lie on the
Principal/Dean/Head
to
whom
the
allotment letter is addressed and who is
the
overall
in
charge
of
the
college/faculty/department."

10. A learned Single Judge at
Lucknow
placing
reliance
on
the
judgment of the learned Single Judge at
Allahabad was pleased to dismiss the
petitions against which the present special
appeal.

11. At the hearing of this appeal, on
behalf of the appellants, learned counsel
submits that the action of the University
which was not the admitting University in
cancelling the allotment of the appellants
and in forwarding other candidates in
second round for admission is illegal, null
and void. It is submitted that though in the
brochure there was a condition that the
allotted candidates had to deposit the seat
confirmation fees, that was only a
procedural requirement as the appellant
and similarly situated candidates were
under a bona fide belief that as they had
deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- as
advance for the fees and the fees were less
than the said amount, they need not
deposit the fees confirmation fee. The
College also granted admissions without
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the said deposit. Once they were admitted,
the civil right of the appellants would be
affected if the cancellation of allotment is
done without affording any opportunity to
them. In the instant case, no such
opportunity was given to the appellants.
Secondly,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants contended that neither in the
brochure nor in the purported notification
issued by the Registrar dated 28.9.2010
there was any specific condition that on
failure of taking Allotment Confirmation/
Seat
Acceptance
declaration,
the
admissions of the appellants would be
cancelled and what was set out was that
the candidates will have no claim to the
seat. It is pointed out that once admissions
were made by the College, the issue of no
claim would not arise. Assuming that the
notification was issued on 28.9.2010, that
would not apply in the facts and
circumstances of the case to the appellant
and
the
other
similarly
situated
candidates.
Apart
from
that,
the
notification notes that it is the duty of the
College to ensure that the requisite receipt
is produced.

12. On the other hand, on behalf of
the University, learned counsel submits
that in absence of any information as to
how many candidates have been allowed
to take admission by the Colleges and as
their computer data entry showed the
seats as vacant, on failure of the appellant
and similarly situated candidates in
producing
the
Allotment
Confirmation/Seat Acceptance declaration
before the Counselling Centre, they were
compelled to send other candidates in the
second round of counselling.

13. The question for consideration is
whether the selection authority, which
was not the admitting authority in most
cases except for the affiliated colleges of
Lucknow University could treat the
admissions done already by the allottee
College and treat it as non-est and allot
candidates in the second round for the
same seat. The second question is whether
the failure to deposit the amount as set out
in the allotment letters could result in
depriving the selected candidates the right
to admission, even if the fees asked to be
deposited were covered by the deposit of
Rs.5000/- already made by them.

14. We have earlier noted, the
admission brochure of which we have
reproduced the relevant portion. In so far
as Seat Confirmation fee is concerned, it
would be clear from the brochure that all
the candidates who had been allotted
seats, had to deposit Seat Confirmation
fees at the Seat Confirmation Counter and
if the candidate failed to deposit the seat
confirmation fees within the stipulated
time, he/she will have no claim over the
seat any more. The appellants and other
similarly
situated
candidates
had
deposited advance fees of Rs. 5000/-.
Their seat confirmation fee was less than
that. In these circumstances, can the
students like the appellants be placed in a
position that though their college and the
affiliated University had granted them
admission, the allotting authority had
allotted other candidates for the same
seats. Condition no. 5, shows that the
candidates had to report to the Seat
Confirmation Counter for confirming
their seats even if the amount of college
fees is less than the advance fees of Rs.
5000.00. In the instant case, the appellant
and other similarly situated candidates
had paid the advance fees of Rs. 5000.00
and were entitled to refund of the balance
fee. Learned counsel for the University
took us to the letter of allotment. We may
2 All] Ajeeth Singh Yadav and others V. State of U.P.
509
refer to one which is set out in the said
letter of allotment:

"The candidate has to deposit Rs. (-
2022) as the balance of the college fee at
the counselling centre through a DD in
favour of Finance Officer, University of
Lucknow, payable at Lucknow within
three calendar days from the issue of this
letter (excluding the Independence Day).
If this amount is not deposited at the
counselling centre within the specified
time, the allotment will stand cancelled
and the sum of Rs. 5000.00 deposited by
the candidate as the Advance College Fee
will be forfeited.

Even if the amount of college fee is
less than Rs. 5000.00 or the candidate is
allowed zero-fee, he/she has to report to
the fees deposition counter today itself
and get a receipt with negative balance to
confirm his/her allotment. The excess
amount, if any, will be refunded to the
candidate by the respective college. All
candidates have to report to the colleges
fee deposition counter at the counselling
centre without which the seat allotment
will be incomplete."

From this, it would be clear that as in
the brochure it is set out that if the amount
is not deposited at the counselling centre
within the specified time, the provisional
allotment would not be confirmed even if
the amount was less than Rs.5000/- then
to get a receipt with negative balance to
confirm the allotment. There is no dispute
that seat allotment fees had not been paid
by the appellants.

15. We may now consider the merit
of the second paragraph although it says
that if the amount of college fee is less than
Rs. 5000.00 or the candidate is allowed
zero-fee, he/she has to report to the fees
deposition counter and get a receipt with
negative balance to confirm his/her
allotment. Later part of paragraph only
says that all the candidates have to report
to the colleges fee deposition counter at the
counselling centre without which the seat
allotment will be incomplete. This is
similar to the language of the brochure. If
allotment was incomplete, could it be
completed. In our opinion, if a view is
taken that there is a power of cancellation
though the candidates deposits covered the
fees payable then a meritorious candidate
who had been selected and had paid his
fees as the deposit was sufficient, then
such a view would be arbitrary as that
would amount to a penalty to pay
additional fees though fees were not
payable. A procedural requirement cannot
result in denying to a meritorious candidate
the seat if in fact he had deposited the fees.
Further the colleges to which they were
allotted had admitted them. Thus a mere
procedural
failure
cannot
result
in
depriving the candidate of the seat. Merely
because after the allotment they had not
reported to the college fee deposition
counter, will not result in denying such
candidates their right of completing the
course after being admitted. In our opinion,
the admission would be complete the very
moment the candidate was selected and the
necessary fees had been deposited and was
admitted to the college. The requirement in
the brochure was only a procedural
requirement to enable the University to
know if there was any vacancy and the
candidate who was allotted to the college
had been admitted. By any stretch of
imagination it cannot result in holding that
because of non completion of the said
requirement,
the
admission
of
the
candidate itself would be non-est. We
reiterate that the moment the students are
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
admitted and the respective University
accepts,
then
their
admission
was
complete. The action of the University as
the
allotting
authority
in
allotting
candidates in the second round against the
said purported vacancy would thus be
arbitrary and consequential action of the
Lucknow University after the allotment
has been completed, is illegal. The
admission could only be cancelled by the
respective Colleges or the University to
which it was affiliated and that too after
complying with the principles of natural
justice. If the College had admitted the
students contrary to the procedure in the
brochure, action if and at all is to be taken
against the College authorities and not the
students. There was nothing in the
allotment letter which can result in holding
that if the students had not reported to the
seat confirmation counter even though the
deposit was in excess of the fees and the
College had admitted them, then those
admissions were non-est.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside and the petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (C) which reads as
under:

"a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to allow the petitioner to
pursue his studies and also to allow him to
appear
in
the
forthcoming
B.Ed.
Examinations for the academic session
2010-11 and to declare his results."

17. We make it clear that if any other
candidate had been admitted pursuant to
the second round of counseling and their
admission does not affect the right of the
candidates admitted in the first round, then
in that event, the admission of such
candidates would also not be interfered
with. We further direct that the authority
which is entrusted with the procedure for
selection does not make it a requirement
for the students to pay additional amount
towards fees, if the fees can be adjusted
from the sum of Rs.5000/- or such as the
students may be called upon to deposit.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA,J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J.

Special Appeal No. 444 of 2003

Food Corporation of India and others

 ...Appellants
Versus
H.N. Srivastava

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satya Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Constitution
of
India-Article
226punishment-reversion-compulsory
retirement
alongwith
fine
of
Rs.
166320/-inspite of accepting the report
of enquiry officer by which negligence in
duty-no charge of misappropriation or
loss proved-held-power exercised by the
disciplinary
authority
amounts
to
colorable
exercise
of
power-the
approach of disciplinary authority is self
contradictory-order of recovery-set-aside corporation to refund entire amount
with interest.

Held: Para 10

We have gone through the order passed
by the learned Single Judge on 22nd
April, 2003, impugned in this appeal, and
the order of the disciplinary authority