Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 1019
High Court Of Delhi
ANITA GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR - Respondent
Decided On : 07/31/2002
Factual disputes require trial, not writ jurisdiction. Suppression of material facts disentitles a petitioner to relief. The appropriate remedy for damages.
Headnote:
R. C. Chopra - Petition against closure of Study Centre - Article 226, 227 - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14] - The court dismissed the petition challenging the closure of a study centre by the respondents. The petitioner, a private centre engaged by a national open university, alleged arbitrary closure without jurisdiction and sought relief. The respondents opposed, citing irregularities and deficiencies in the petitioner's centre. The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and misled the court, and that the disputes were factual and required trial, not writ jurisdiction. The court also held that the petitioner's conduct disentitled her to relief and that the appropriate remedy was a claim for damages. The petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private centre engaged by a national open university, alleged arbitrary closure without jurisdiction and sought relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and misled the court, and that the disputes were factual and required trial, not writ jurisdiction. The court also held that the petitioner's conduct disentitled her to relief and that the appropriate remedy was a claim for damages.
Issues: Suppression of material facts, misleading the court, factual disputes requiring trial, appropriate remedy for damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's conduct disentitled her to relief, and the disputes were factual and required trial, not writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner was a claim for damages.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the closure of the study centre was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 1. 3. 2002 and Notification dated 27. 2. 2002 issued by the respondents closing down the Programme Study Centre no. 0745 (P) which was being run by the petitioner under the name of M/s Sofftech Computer City at Sector - 7, rohini, Delhi.
( 2 ) THE case, as set up by the petitioner,is that the respondents are the officers of Indira Gandhi National open University established under an Act of Parliament for advancement and dissemination of learning and knowledge in Communication Technology. To achieve its object the University through its Regional centres have engaged the services of various private centres for imparting Computer education to the students. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s softtach Computer City, was engaged by the respondents and in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 23. 9. 1999 was awarded the status of work Centre for the certificate in Computing and Bachelors in Computer application Programmes. The respondents allotted students to the petitioner s centre where all arrangements were made and basic facilities provided to the entire satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner s centre was upgraded from work Centre to study Centre vide MOU dated 14. 9. 2000. The petitioner incurred heavy expenditure in creating the infrastructure and engaging staff for running the said study Centre and was allotted 1716 students for the session January to June 2001 and 1150 students for July to December 2001 session. For January to June 2002, 1051 students were allotted to the petitioner vide respondent? letter dated 21. 12. 01. The petitioner further pleaded that in view of satisfactory performance in the current session from January to June 2002 the respondents further allotted 58 seats vide letter dated 10. 1. 2002 and one more student vide letter dated 22. 2. 2002. On 24. 1. 2002 the respondents appreciated the programmes and education being imparted to the students at the petitioner s centre. Blank examination forms for the students for June 2002 were issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner there was no complaint of any irregularity against the petitioner s centre but still vide letter dated 1. 3. 2002 the respondents informed the petitioner that her Study centre had been ordered to be closed with immediate effect. A copy of the Notification dated 27. 2. 2002 was also sent alongwith this letter. The petitioner challenges this action of the respondent as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the statute and submits that no Show Cause Notice was given before taking the action against her. The petitioner has prayed that the impugned letter and the order be quashed and the respondents be restrained from withdrawing the students from the Centre of the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE respondents have opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit in which preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the petitioner is trying to seek enforcement of a commercial contract and as such her petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is guilty of concealment and suppression of material facts from the Court on account of which even interim relief was obtained. It is pointed out that the petitioner did not disclose to the Court that there were so many complaints against her centre in regard to its functioning and as such her claim that there were no complaints against her Study Centre was false. The respondents submit that there were various irregularities in the petitioner s Study Centre in as much as the Councellors were not taking classes regularly and the students were being made to fill up and sign, at the beginning of the semestor itself, the attendance sheet in advance for creating false proof of the attendance of the students so as to stake false claim
