# Millennium Institute of Technology (M/S) 15 v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 129
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 2 of 2016
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/millennium-institute-of-technology-m-s-15-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43395
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-maintainability-by
institutionseeking
enforcement
of
scholarship
scheme to SC/ST/OBC of institutiondismissed by Learned Single Judge for
want of locus-but failed to appreciate
the
prayer
for
disbursement
of
scholarship to those students getting
education-denial on ground of locusamounts to denial of benefit of scheme
itself-calls for interference-accordingly
order by Single Judge set-a-side-petition
stand allowed with necessary direction.
Held: Para-9 & 10
In the present case before the learned
Single
Judge
the
appellants
have
categorically stated that they have not
assailed the scheme, according to which
the students are eligible for scholarship
and have also not prayed for direct
disbursement of the scholarship in the
accounts of the institution but what the
appellant had prayed for in the writ
petition is for extending the benefit of
scheme to the respective students who
are being imparted education through
the appellant institution. Once the prayer
is
made
for
disbursement
of
the
scholarship as per the terms of the
scheme, to doubt the locus of the
appellant in such a situation, would
amount to defeating the very object of
the policy of the State Government,
according
to
which
the
students
belonging to reserved category classes
are entitled to avail the benefit of
scholarship through various institutions
recognized by the State.

## Text

1 All. Millennium Institute of Technology 7674 (M/S) 15 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
129
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Special Appeal No. 2 of 2016
Millennium
Institute
of
Technology
(M/S) 15 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
H.S. Jain, Ranjana Agnihotri
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-maintainability-by
institutionseeking
enforcement
of
scholarship
scheme to SC/ST/OBC of institutiondismissed by Learned Single Judge for
want of locus-but failed to appreciate
the
prayer
for
disbursement
of
scholarship to those students getting
education-denial on ground of locusamounts to denial of benefit of scheme
itself-calls for interference-accordingly
order by Single Judge set-a-side-petition
stand allowed with necessary direction.
Held: Para-9 & 10
In the present case before the learned
Single
Judge
the
appellants
have
categorically stated that they have not
assailed the scheme, according to which
the students are eligible for scholarship
and have also not prayed for direct
disbursement of the scholarship in the
accounts of the institution but what the
appellant had prayed for in the writ
petition is for extending the benefit of
scheme to the respective students who
are being imparted education through
the appellant institution. Once the prayer
is
made
for
disbursement
of
the
scholarship as per the terms of the
scheme, to doubt the locus of the
appellant in such a situation, would
amount to defeating the very object of
the policy of the State Government,
according
to
which
the
students
belonging to reserved category classes
are entitled to avail the benefit of
scholarship through various institutions
recognized by the State.
10. in our considered opinion, the
judgement passed by the learned Single
Judge, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, calls for interference
and the same is hereby set aside.
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.R. Masoodi, J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned Standing Counsel,
who has accepted notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2.
This special appeal is directed
against the judgement passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7674
(MS) of 2015, whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant institution has been
dismissed as not maintainable on the ground
that the scheme of scholarship being
launched for the benefit of the students does
not culminate into any justiciable interest of
the appellant institution for maintaining a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. The judgement rendered by the
learned Single Judge has been assailed
primarily on the ground that the present
case filed by the appellants was squarely
covered by the pronouncement of a
Division Bench judgement passed by this
Court in Special Appeal No. 581 of 2014
and connected matters on 23.2.2015,
which has already been upheld by the
apex court in SLP (C) No. 14419 of 2015.
130
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. The contention in a nut shell is to
the effect that 34 students are being
imparted education by the appellant
institution who are in the category of
SC/ST/OBC/General
to
whom
scholarship is payable but their forms
could not be forwarded to the department
on account of some technical fault of the
server through e-process.
5. A similar dispute had also
previously come up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge of this
Court, which was allowed in terms of
judgement dated 3.7.2014 passed in a
bunch of writ petitions, leading case being
Writ Petition No. 632 (MS) of 2014. The
judgement passed by the learned Single
Judge was assailed in a bunch of special
appeals, leading case being Special
Appeal (Def.) No. 581 of 2014 and the
appeals filed by the State Government
against
the
said
judgement
were
dismissed. The Division Bench while
deciding
the
appeals
made
certain
observations in respect of the stand taken
by the State Government. The relevant
portion of the Division Bench judgement
for ready reference is extracted below:
"In the given set of facts and looking
to the purpose of the Scheme, the learned
Single Judge cannot be faulted in taking a
view befitting the nature of the beneficial
Scheme.
So far as the suggestion that it
remains a budget specific scheme and
liabilities of one financial year are not
carried forward is concerned, we are
clearly of the view that once the State
Government has declared such nature
Scheme, it cannot be allowed to suggest
any want of budget or finances to deprive
the bonafide eligible candidates of their
legitimate expectations. Noteworthy it is
that under the Scheme, the eligible
candidates are the persons belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
who are permanent or original residents
of the State of U.P. More significantly,
under the Scheme, an eligible candidate is
provided financial support for entire of
his course of study. In other words, the
support under the Scheme is not limited to
one particular financial year only but is
of recurring nature during the course of
studies of the candidate concerned. The
learned counsel for the appellants has
repeatedly referred to the expression
"limited financial resources" as occurring
in clause 11 (iv) of the Scheme. We are
unable to appreciate as to how such an
expression could result in denial of the
financial support to an eligible candidate
only for some delay in submission of
online application form. Looking to the
very nature and purpose of the Scheme,
the time limit as provided in the schedule
of procedure for submission and dealing
with the applications cannot be said to be
that of such an inflexible nature that it
may not admit even of reasonable
relaxation in desirable cases.
We may observe that genuineness of
the claim as made by the petitioner
institutions or the petitioner candidates
had not been the question raised before
the learned Single Judge. In the given set
of facts and circumstances, it appears just
and appropriate to endorse the view taken
by the learned Single Judge with
necessary observations which permits the
appellants to process the applications in
accordance with law and to carry out
necessary scrutiny as regards bonafide
and eligibility of the institutions and
candidates concerned.
Accordingly and in view of the above,
these appeals are dismissed and the order as
passed by the learned Single Judge is
1 All. Millennium Institute of Technology 7674 (M/S) 15 Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
131
affirmed. However, in the interest of justice,
we do make it clear that dismissal of these
appeals shall have the result of approval of
the directions of the learned Single Judge for
acceptance of the applications within time
granted and with the qualification that no
further enlargement of time would be
granted. Further in the interest of justice, it is
provided that if the applications have been
submitted within the stipulated time, the
same would be entertained and processed in
accordance with law and in such processing,
it would, of course, be open for the
appellants
to
carry
out
scrutiny,
if
considered necessary, as regards bona fide
and eligibility of the institution and of the
candidate concerned; but the entire process,
including actual payment in desirable cases,
shall be completed by the appellants
expeditiously, and in any case within 60 days
from the date of receipt of the certified copy
of this order."
6. Learned Standing Counsel does not
dispute the bona fides of the students and
claim of the appellants being similar to that
which was decided by this Court in terms of
the Division Bench judgement referred to
above. It is also not the case of the State
Government that the students, in respect of
whom the disbursement of scholarship is
claimed in the bank accounts of students,
who are recipients of the same benefit
during previous sessions, is a question of
doubt or the bona fides of the institution for
laying such a claim is otherwise faulty
except for the reason that there is delay in
forwarding the form due to technical
reasons. In such a situation, it is difficult to
accept that the institution, which ultimately
imparts education to a special category of
students for whom the scheme is applicable
and who are admitted in the institution by
giving necessary relaxation, may not have a
locus to file the present writ petition
particularly when the students are already
completing their studies and may claim
requisite
certificates
either
from
the
institution or the body competent to grant
such certificates, which may remain
withheld for non-payment of requisite fee
by the students to the appellant college.
7. Once the bona fides of the
students are not a subject matter of doubt
and the students are entitled to the
scholarship, as claimed, and are under an
obligation to make payment of necessary
fee to the appellant institution, it is
difficult to hold that the institution does
not have any justiciable interest to
represent the cause on behalf of the
students who are being educated.
8.
The learned Single Judge, while
dealing with the matter, has not considered
this aspect of the matter and has, rather,
proceeded on the premise of another
Division Bench judgement passed by this
Court in Writ-C No. 56695 of 2014. The
judgement passed by the Division bench in
the aforesaid writ petition appears to be in
respect of some distant education program
and the issue involved in that writ petition
challenging the very scheme of disbursement
of scholarship in the bank accounts of the
students, does not appear to be an issue
similar to the one dealt with by the Division
Bench in the judgement dated 23.3.2015
passed in Special Appeal No. 581 of 2014
against which the SLP has also been
dismissed by the apex court. Once the
students are regularly studying and their
details
are
forwarded
to
the
State
Government for necessary verification, there
does not seem to be any good reason for the
State not to include the claim of the students
who are represented by the appellant. The
students in whose accounts the necessary
scholarship in terms of the scheme is to be
132
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disbursed by the State Government are not to
be compelled to litigate for bona fide claims. It
is true that every student has to apply as per
the time schedule prescribed in the scheme but
in a situation where the necessary forms have
been submitted but all the details could not be
forwarded to the State authorities timely due
to some technical reason beyond the control of
the students, any such objections pressed by
the State Government before the learned
Single Judge ought not to have weighed over
and above the object of the scheme which the
State Government is under a bounden duty to
implement.
9.
There is yet another feature of
distinction in the case set up before us as
compared to the Division Bench judgement
dated 11.12.2014. In the present case before
the learned Single Judge the appellants have
categorically stated that they have not
assailed the scheme, according to which the
students are eligible for scholarship and
have also not prayed for direct disbursement
of the scholarship in the accounts of the
institution but what the appellant had prayed
for in the writ petition is for extending the
benefit of scheme to the respective students
who are being imparted education through
the appellant institution. Once the prayer is
made for disbursement of the scholarship as
per the terms of the scheme, to doubt the
locus of the appellant in such a situation,
would amount to defeating the very object
of the policy of the State Government,
according to which the students belonging
to reserved category classes are entitled to
avail the benefit of scholarship through
various institutions recognized by the State.
10. In our considered opinion, the
judgement passed by the learned Single
Judge, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, calls for interference and
the same is hereby set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to
extend the benefit of scholarship scheme
to the students whose details have been
forwarded by the appellant institution
even if the students have failed to submit
all the necessary details before the cut-off
date, however, it shall be open to the State
authorities to verify the bona fides of all
such students. The claims of all the
eligible students shall be included in the
process for actual payment and the entire
process shall be completed expeditiously
and not later than a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order by the competent authority.
12. The special appeal thus, stands
allowed with no order as to cost.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal No. 3 of 2016
Shri Sumati Nath Jain
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
Aishwarya Pratap Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-Writ
Petition-against the order by District
Magistrate-fixing liability of additional
stamp duty-in utter violation of Principle
of Natural Justice-Learned Single Judge
dismissed the petition on ground of
alternative remedy to appeal under
Section 56 of Stamp Act-held-Learned