IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delays in seeking relief under Article 226 do not bar claims when fundamental rights are violated, especially in cases involving mistakes or fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Shri Anurag Sharma, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-respondent and Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner took admission in the M.B.B.S. Course run by the respondent-college in the academic year 2002-03 and deposited the fees as per the structure laid down by the college. It appears that 64 students, identically placed as that of the petitioner, claimed refund of excess fees deposited by them in reference to the certain Government orders, etc. When the fees was not refunded by the college, the said 64 students filed Writ-C No. 12333 of 2004 (Abhishek Kadian and others v. State of U.P. and others). Learned Single Judge of this Court, by a very detailed judgment, allowed the writ petition alongwith connected matter with following directions:

''Both the writ petitions are consequently allowed. The Subharti KKB Charitable Trust Meerut and Subharti Medical College, Meerut are held entitled to charge the college fees of payment seats of the student admitted in 2002-03 academic session and for all subsequent years of the same batch @ 1,26,500/- per month as fixed by the Government Order dated 8.1.2003. The Trust and the College will refund the entire excess amount collected from all the 64 students admitted on the payment seats of 2002-03 batch, and for subsequent years for the same batch, within one month. The 17 petitioners in writ petition No. 38368 of 2006 will be allowed to appear in 4th professional examination in the next examinations to be held by the University. They will be allowed to adjust the excess fees paid by them in the three years and will only pay the differences, (sic) any @ Rs. 1,26,500/- per annum. This judgment will be confined only to the students admitted on payment seats to the MBBS Course of the academic session 2002-03 and in subsequent years for the same batch. The College will pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of these petitions to the students by depositing it in the students' welfare fund of the College.''

3. Two special appeals were filed against the said order in connected matters. However, the same were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment dated 29.9.2010. The matter was carried by the college to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which an interim order was passed on 10.12.2010 directing the college to deposit Rs. 4 crores in the Registry within a period of three months. Later on, special leave petitions were dismissed on 8.5.2015. Certain curative petitions and review petitions were filed by the college, however, the same were also dismissed on 13.7.2016.

4. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2017 with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to respondents 2 and 3 to refund the entire excess amount of fees realized from the petitioner in violation of the Government Order dated 8.1.2003 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the excess amount.

5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition is being finally decided.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since identically placed students have already been refunded the amount of excess fees, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

7. Per contra, Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the college, has vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit of the orders passed by the Writ Court or Special Appellate Bench or the Apex Court as the 64 students had agitated their claim in the year 2004 whereas the petitioner has approached this Court in 2017 and his claim is barred by laches. Learned counsel has further argued that limitation for claiming refund of any amount is three years as per the Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim refund of excess fees. He has also argued that since the petitione