# Ram Avatar Kalyani Devi Kanya Mahavidyalay & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 1000
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-08
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 14258 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-avatar-kalyani-devi-kanya-mahavidyalay-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46269
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Examination fee - Late Fee -
Colleges collect fee from students for
entire year, including examination fee
required to be deposited by College with
the University - However, examination
fee is not deposited by College with
University in time - Universities charge
late fee from the erring colleges - Colleges
transfer the said late fee upon the
students - Court directed the Universities
to frame specific provision providing that
in such cases late fee and penalty would
be imposed upon the colleges only, which
they would be barred from recovering
from their students (Para 4)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
retain. In term of mandate of Article 300-A
of the Constitution of India any person can
be deprived of his property only by and
under the procedure established by law.
The procedure prescribed by law for
confiscating the property as contained in
Section 5-A (7) of the Cow Slaughter Act
empowers the District Magistrate/ the
Commissioner of Police to confiscate/ seize
the vehicle only if the condition so
prescribed
under
sub-Section
7
are
fulfilled.

15. In the present case, as recorded
above, none of the conditions existed so as
to empower the exercise of power of
confiscation as has been done by the
District Magistrate in the order impugned.
The order is clearly not sustainable and is
set aside with a direction to the District
Magistrate to release the vehicle of the
petitioner forthwith without any bond or
sureties as none of the conditions for
seizure/ confiscation exists in the present
case.

16. I am not going to the question of
maintainability of the revision in view of
the fact that the order dated 05.10.2020
passed by the District Magistrate is clearly
not sustainable and has been set aside by
this Court.

17. The writ petition stands allowed
in terms of the said order. No order as to
costs.
----------

(2021)10ILR A1000
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
Misc. Single No. 14258 of 2021
and
Misc. Single No. 14381 of 2021
and
Misc. Single No. 14473 of 2021

Ram
Avatar
Kalyani
Devi
Kanya
Mahavidyalay & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lalit Kishore Tiwari, Himanshu Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh

Civil Law - Examination fee - Late Fee -
Colleges collect fee from students for
entire year, including examination fee
required to be deposited by College with
the University - However, examination
fee is not deposited by College with
University in time - Universities charge
late fee from the erring colleges - Colleges
transfer the said late fee upon the
students - Court directed the Universities
to frame specific provision providing that
in such cases late fee and penalty would
be imposed upon the colleges only, which
they would be barred from recovering
from their students (Para 4)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner
colleges,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State and Sri Savitra
Vardhan
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent University.

2. Present writ petitions are filed by
the petitioner colleges for quashing of the
order dated 04.07.2021 whereby a penalty
of Rs. 500/- per student was imposed by the
University upon the colleges for deposit of
late fee as the examination fee was
10 All. Ram Avatar Kalyani Devi Kanya Mahavidyalay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1001
deposited by the colleges after the last
date for deposit had expired.

3. This Court passed an interim
order
dated
12.07.2021
in
Writ
Petition No.14473 (M/S) of 2021
(C/M
Sri
Jagdev
Singh
Mahavidayalaya Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) requiring the colleges to deposit
only Rs. 250 per student as late fee
for allowing students to appear in the
examination.
The
University
has
permitted all the students to appear in
the
examination.
Meanwhile,
the
University
has
also
recalled
its
earlier order dated 04.07.2021 and
permitted all the colleges to deposit
only Rs. 250/- per students as late
fee. Since, the University itself has
modified
its
earlier
order
dated
04.07.2021, which stands complied in
petitioners' case also, therefore, there
is no requirement for passing of any
further order with regard to late fees.
The examination of students of the
petitioner
colleges,
which
the
University has already taken, only
result thereof is now required to be
declared. The Court in the given
circumstances,
the
colleges
have
already complied and deposited the
required late fee, as per the amended
order of the University, direct the
University to declare their result
within ten days from today.

4. Before parting with the case,
the Court would like to point out the
fraud being played by large number
of colleges. The colleges collect fee
from their students for the entire
year, including the examination fee
required to be deposited by them with
the
University.
However,
the
examination fee is not deposited by
them with the University in time. The
amount is retained by the colleges in
their bank accounts. This act amounts
to playing fraud both upon the
students
as
well
as
upon
the
University concerned. Such activity
should be immediately stopped. The
action in this regard ought to be
taken by both, the University as well
as the State Government. It has come
before this Court that Universities
charge late fee from the erring
colleges. In absence of any specific
provisions, the colleges transfer the
said late fee upon the students, while
there is no fault of the students. The
Universities have not yet framed any
specific provision providing that in
such cases late fee and penalty would
be imposed upon the colleges only,
which they would be barred from
recovering from their students. The
Universities
should
specifically
provide
such
a
provision
before
opening of any academic session.
Unless the Universities clarifies the
same, it is very difficult to stop this
fraudulent practice adopted by the
colleges. It is expected that the
Universities as well as the State
Government shall expeditiously look
into the matter.

5. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to the respondent no.1
Principal Secretary, Department of
Higher Education, Government of
U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. Mr.
Pankaj Khare,
learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel will take
appropriate steps for the same.

6. With the aforesaid, present
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)10ILR A1002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Misc. Bench No. 15164 of 2021

Zubair ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Purnendu Chakravarty & Sri Anuuj
Taandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Singh, Additional Government
Advocate

Criminal Law - Remission of Sentence -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 432, 433, 433-A - Uttar
Pradesh
Prisoner's
Release
on
Probation Act, 1938 - Section 2 - U.P.
Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules,
1938 - Rules 3 & 4 - Form 'A' - Power to
commute sentence - petitioner, aged about
72 years, already undergone sentence for
more than 23 years with remission and
more than 17 years without remission -
similarly situated co-convicts of the case
were released by granting remission -
petitioner 'Form A' rejected on the ground
that the offence for which he was punished
was heinous offence & he jumped furlough
& remained absconded for a period of 6
years 08 months and 27 days - Held -
similarly situated co-convicts were released,
so reason given that offence was heinous
shows the discriminatory attitude of the
Authorities
-
for
jumping
furlough,
petitioner already received punishment of
forfeiture of his total earned remission of
1087 days - impugned order Set aside -
Authorities directed to release the petitioner
on licence. (Para 10)
Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the material
available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner- Zubair with the
prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Joint
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh
whereby the 'Form A' of the petitioner for
grant of remission of his consequent release
has been rejected, with a further prayer to
release the petitioner forthwith in the light
of recommendations made by the District
Magistrate,
Muzaffar
Nagar,
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar
and Senior Superintendent, District Jail
Haridwar on remission and pre-mature
release.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that 'Form A' of the petitioner,
who is aged about 72 years, for grant of
remission of his consequent release has
been rejected by the State Government vide
its
order
dated
30.06.2021
without
application of mind. He further submitted
that the petitioner has already undergone
sentence for more than 23 years with
remission and more than 17 years without
remission as per the calculation shown in
the report sent by the Jail Authorities,
Haridwar. He further submitted that plea of
remission taken by the petitioner was
rejected on the unreasonable grounds of
nature
and
gravity
of
the
offence
committed, whereas the similarly situated
co-convicts of the case were released by