SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the lead case are that the complainant took admission in M.Sc (Fashion Technology & Designing Course) for two years during Session April/ May, 2014 onwards and paid the entire course fees of Rs.1,73,100/- to the OP 1 and OP 2 issued money receipts. The OPs 1 to 3 declined to furnish any information regarding affiliation of the course under the OP 4 University Grants Commission. The OP 3 Karnataka State Open University issued Mark Sheet of third Semester Examination after eight months. On completion of third semester the OP-1, Global Institute of Fashion Technology suspended the classes of fourth Semester. That the OP 4 vide notice F No. UGC/ DEB/Ech. Edu / 1/2015 dated 11.03.2015 declared that “No University Institution deemed to be University. Institution should offer Diploma, Bachelor’s and Master’s level programme in Engineering & Technology other than MBA and MCA till the finalization of UGC (Open & Distance Learning) Regulation, 2014 or notification of relevant Regulations by an independent regulatory authority established by Central Government to deal with ODL, education in higher education system in the country whichever is earlier.“
Further case of the complainant is that the OP4 vide letter dated 13.01.2016 declined the request of OP-3 to consider the renewal of recognition of the course for the academic year 2013 -14 and 2014-15. The Expert Committee visited the OP3 University and did not recommend the recognition the old programme for the year 2015-2016. That the OP3 vide notification dated 01.07.2015 informed all their study centre to withdraw all the programmes offered by collaborative institution of OP3 Karnataka State Open University outside territory of Karnataka with immediate effect. Complainant vide letter dated 19.04.2017 requested the OPs 1 to 3 for refund of the course fees. The OPs 1 & 2 vide letter dated 27.05.2017 avoid their responsibility regarding non-completion of the course. The OP-3 also replied the letter of the complainant and strike out their responsibility regarding non affiliation of course from OP4.
Hence, complaint is filed by the complainant claiming refund of Rs.1,73,100/- along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost from the OPs.
OP-1 has contested the case by filing Written Version contending inter alia that the answering OP is the study centre of Pan India Education which is a Collaborative Institute of OP3, Karnataka State Open University. The OP-1 was conducting certain courses as offered by the OP3. The OP3 has granted approval to the answering OP as its Study Centre and also authorized to admit & register the students under OP-3 vide their letters dated 28.11.2013 & 16.01.2014. The OP3 had also executed a MOU and also issued a certificate in favour of Pan India Education approving the answering OP as its Study Centre. As per Clause-4 of the MOU dated 12.08.2014 the answering OP and OP2 are to continue the said course for a period of five years. Accordingly, the answering OP had started to admit students in different courses and a part of the fees deposited to the OP3 for registration of the students. The OP-4 vide Notification No. UGC/DEB/8/KSOU/1/2015 dated 16.06.2015 had discontinued the recognition of the academic programmes conducted by the OP3. It is further alleged that the police authority has also investigated the incident and clean-cheat the answering OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, the OP1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In spite of service of notices the OPs 2 & 3 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs 2 & 3. The OP4 University Grants commission was present during trial. However, they have not filed any Written Version but have filed Brief Notes of Argument.
Decision with Reasons
To prove their case both parties have adduced evidence through affidavit. They have also filed questionnaire and replies vis-a-vis relevant documents in support of their respective cases. We have also given a thoughtful consideration of the arguments.
Fact remains that the complainant took admission in M.Sc (Fashion Technology & Designing) Course for the Session April / May, 2014 and onwards in the OP1 Institution. She paid a sum of Rs.1, 73,100/- towards course fees to the OP1 on different dates and the OP 2 issued money receipts against payment. It is also true that the OP4, University Grants Commission vide letter dated March 2016 informed the Registrar General, Punjab & Haryana High Court, that the OP-3, Karnataka State Open University requested the OP4 to consider renewal of recognition of programs retrospectively and the OP4 vide its letter dated 13.10.2016 has informed the OP3 University that the request of ex post facto approval for academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be accepted. Thus, the OP3 have no recognition to offer programmes through distance mode for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15.
It is an admitted fact that the UGC has been constituted under the provisions of the University Grants commission Act, 1056 (Act No. 3 of 1956 ) which came into force w.e.f. 05.11.1956. The act was enacted to make provisions for the co-ordination and determination of standards in the Universities. For the said purpose, the UGC has been rested with the power to recommend to any University, the measures necessary for the improvement of University education and advise the Universities upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendation.
Undisputedly, OP1 Global Institute of Fashion Technology is a Private Institution located in the State of West Bengal and OP3, Karnataka State Open University, Mysore is a University by an Act of State Legislature. It was accorded Institutional Recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC), IGNOU from 2007 - 2008 to 2012-2013 to offer programmes through distance mode and no further recognition has been given to the University. We have it from the D.O. No. 6-7/2009-DL dated 29.07.2009 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development that they directed the DEC to withdraw permission for conduction of B.E / B.Tech Programmes through distance mode from 2009-2010 onwards. In a separate action AICTE vide public notice / advertisement No. UB04 (04) / 2010 and again in 2011 notified their policy not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at Diploma. Bachelor and Master’s level in the field of Engineering and Technology. The OP4 UGC vide its public notice dated 11.03.2015 on professional courses in Engineering & Technology through distance mode stipulated that no University institution deemed to University / Institution should offer Diploma, Bachelor and Master’s level Programme in Engineering & Technology other than MBA and MCA till the finalization of UGC (ODL) Regulations, 2014.
The OP-3 Karnataka State Open University, Mysore being a State University can operate within its state only. The University is not authorized to open Study Centre / Off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Karnataka as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yash Pal – Vs – The State of Chhattisgarh (2005). The University is to follow the territorial jurisdiction policy of UGC as per its public policy dated 27.06.2013. The OP-4 UGC has not granted any approval to the University to open off campus / study centre anywhere. The OP-1 has been conducting programmes offered by Karnataka State Open University, Mysore in an unauthorized manner. The OP-3 itself was not authorized to offer programmes in distance Education beyond 2012 – 2013 and to franchise its programmes to other organizations. Since franchising was never permitted either by the erstwhile DEC or UGC or even by the Law of the land through various judgments, the existence of these so called study centre is not legal.
The OP-1 has been conducting programmes offered by OP-3 in an unauthorized manner. The OP-3 is not authorized to offer any Distance Education Programmes beyond 2012-13 and to franchise its programmes to other organizations. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its judgment in W.P. (c) No. 9779 of 2014 dated 20.12.2014 also inter-alia directed the UGC to initiate proceedings for withdrawal of the recognition of the Calicut University for running courses by Distance Education in contravention to the policy on territorial jurisdiction.
The Division bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 13987 (W) of 2016 (Ashoke Kumar Nandy – Vs – Union of India & Ors) vide judgment dated 19.05.2017 held that the Institutions not recognized/ approved by the Universities through UGC in the course not approved by UGC have admitted the students of the Academic Session 2016-17 illegally , which costs consequences inconvenience to the students of said Academic Sessions 2016-17 and also directed the Respondents No. 5 to 9 to refund the fees, if any, collected from the students for the Academic Year 2016 – 2017 within four weeks, to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the students admitted in the Academic Year 2016-17 who enable to secure admission in any other institution for the year 2017-18 within six weeks including other directions. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that a University established in a State cannot operate any campus / study centre beyond territorial jurisdiction of such state. OP-4 UGC has also taken a serious view of misleading advertisements appearing in various newspapers as well as national daily newspapers offering opportunities for University degree beyond territorial jurisdiction and the general public, student and other stake-holders have been cautioned about such activities by issuing public notices. We think that the OP1 is illegally continuing to offer various programmes through distance learning mode in blatant violation of the guidelines and directives of the UGC.
In course of argument the Learned Advocate for the OP-1 has contended that as per MOU dated 12.08.2014 the OPs 1 and 2 are to continue the said course for a period of five years, had started to admit students in different courses and a part of the fees deposited to the OP-3 for registration of the students. It is also true that the OP3 replied the notice dated 19.04.2017 of the complainant and denied regarding Enrolment No. 132212 MFTP 0012 in favour of the complainant. During investigation, I.O. ascertained that the Mark sheets / Certificates were originally issued by Karnataka State Open University (OP3) and OPs 1 & 2 have also transferred money to KSOU to enroll the names of the candidates. Therefore, the OP-3 cannot bypass their liabilities in this regard. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs 1 to 3.
Having carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties coupled with documents on record and argument advanced by both parties and in the light of the guidelines issued by the OP4, UGC there cannot be any doubt that the OPs 1 to 3 are offering distance education programme illegally and without having affiliation or recognition of OP4 UGC and also in utter violation of the guidelines and directives of UGC. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case merit succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-1 and ex parte against the OPs 2 & 3 with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only. The case is also dismissed against the OP- 4 without any litigation cost.
The OPs 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,73,100/- ( Rupees one lac seventy three thousand one hundred) only to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost.
The OPs 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) only to the complainant as compensation for loss of year, causing harassment and mental agony within the stipulated period.
The OPs 1 to 3 are directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only to this Forum as punitive damage for practicing unfair trade within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OPs 1 to 3 transgress to comply the order.
