Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5287/2023
GITA RATTAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES AND TRAINING ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avadh B. Kaushik, Adv.
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD
R-1 and 3 Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv. for R-4
22.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Avadh B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the order dated 27 September 2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 13224/2022 (Gita Rattan Institute of Advanced Studies and Training v. Government of NCT of Delhi), which reads thus:
3. In light of the above, the Petitioner herein is also granted the same relief as has been granted to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 13897/2022 vide Order dated 26.09.2022.
4. With these observations, the petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.”
2. It is specifically averred, in the writ petition that no decision on the petitioner’s representation, by way of compliance with the directions issued on 27 September 2022 was communicated to the petitioner, though the petitioner, in compliance with the directions contained in the said order, addressed a detailed representation to the respondent on 10 October 2022.
3. Without communicating, to the petitioner, the outcome of its representation, it is averred that, on 10 April 2023, Respondent 1 issued a notification declaring that revision of the proposed fee had been permitted only in the case of three institutions.
4. It is the submission of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned ASC appearing for the GNCTD that the petitioner’s representation had actually been rejected, which is why the notification dated 10 April 2023 notified acceptance of the request of only three institutions.
5. That, in my view, does not amount to compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 27 September 2022. It was necessary for Respondent 1 to communicate, individually to the petitioner, the outcome of its request. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that a decision which results in civil consequences has necessarily to be reasoned and speaking so that the petitioner would be aware of the reason why its request was rejected, if at all.
6. In view of the aforesaid, and keeping in mind the fact that the directions were issued by this Court as far back as on 27 September 2022, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent 1 to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 29 January 2024 at 11:00 AM and, thereafter, to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner’s representation dated 10 October 2022 within a period of 10 days from that date.
7. Needless to say, should the petitioner continue to remain aggrieved, the remedies available in law with the petitioner in that regard would stand reserved.
8. This writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.
9. Mr. Aggarwal, at this juncture, points out that there may be an operational hitch in complying with the directions as the earlier decision had been taken by the 5th State Fee Regulatory Committee (SFRC) which has since been disbanded and the 6th SFRC has been constituted, which is dealing with the cases for the years 2025 onwards.
10. To my mind, it this submission cannot be countenanced. A reading of the directions in the order dated 27 September 2022 clearly reveals that the directions to decide representation were issued to the GNCTD and not to the SFRC. It is the GNCTD, therefore, which has to decide the representation.
11. The SFRC was only directed to cooperate with the GNCTD and forward the record to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is for the GNCTD to requisition the record and take a decision in accordance with the directions issued by this Court.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.