Rashid Paul

High Court to avoid imposing costs on petitioner, warns her to be careful in future

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Filing of successive writ petitions for same relief by a student

Srinagar: Dismissing and deprecating a practice resorted to by a female student for filing successive writ petitions for same relief, the J&K High Court today decided to avoid imposing costs on the petitioner and warned her to be careful in such matters in future.

A female student from Kashmir had approached the J&K Women’s Development Corporation under the scheme floated by National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation for pursing MBBS course in the Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh.

The College issued admission offer letter dt.03.09.2018 in her favour on the basis of which education loan of Rs.30.00 lac was sanctioned by the Corporation in her favour.

A sanction letter dated 24.12.2018 was issued by the Corporation after verifying the required documents.

According to the petitioner, there was delay on the part of the Corporation to sanction the loan, as such, the first installment of loan could not be released in favour of the College by 20.11.2018, the last date stipulated for deposition of the fee.

The first installment of loan was released by the Corporation only on 24.02.2019. The College authorities refused to admit her, as a consequence whereof, he approached another medical college the M/S Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh and secured her admission there.

Thereafter the first installment of feet hat had been lately transferred by the Corporation to the Community Based Medical College was transferred by her to M/S Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, she said.

Without going into reasons the Corporation issued letter dated 31.01.2020 directing the petitioner to repay the amount of loan which had been released in her favour, she said in her petition.

This, according to her, prompted her to file Writ petition bearing WP(C)No. 379/2020. She said the Corporation has put her career at risk, which has compelled her to file the second writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1216/2020.

The Corporation has resisted both the writ petitions saying that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into and determined in the writ jurisdiction.

The Corporation has submitted that on 30.12.2019, the father of the petitioner approached it stating that the first installment of loan, that was released in favour of Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh, has been transferred to Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh as the petitioner could not secure a seat for herself in the Community Based Medical College.

According to it, the transfer of amount was made without information to it and, as such, the request of the petitioner could not be accepted.

It is further contended that the act of petitioner to get back the first installment of fee from the aforesaid College and transfer the same, on her own, to Khwaja Younus Ali Medical College, Bangladesh virtually amounts to a fraud as the same has been done without the consent of the Corporation.

Deprecating the practice of filing successive writ petitions for the same relief after failing to get the interim relief in the earlier writ petition, Justice Sanjay Dhar pronounced “ordinarily, this Court would have imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner for resorting to this unhealthy practice”.

“But, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a student, a lenient view of the matter is taken and the petitioner is warned to be careful in future in such matters.

The action of the Corporation in not releasing the second installment of loan in favour of the petitioner appears to be justified and the same cannot be termed either arbitrary or malafide, Justice Dhar said.

In fact, there are no allegations of malafides in the writ petitions against the respondent Corporation, he added.

The judge chose not to interfere into the action of Corporation in not releasing the installments of loan in favour of the student, calling it purely a matter relating to contractual obligations of the parties.

The issue whether there was any delay on the part of the respondent-Corporation in sanctioning of loan in favour of petitioner, is a disputed question of fact, he noted and advised the lady to approach a civil court to agitate her issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *