Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Appeal bearing Nos. A/850/2016 and A/905/2016 being arisen out of the same Order dated 10-08-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata – II (Central) in CC/186/2016, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant opted for pursuing MBA in Marketing under the OP No. 1 University through the OP No. 2.  It is alleged that although the Complainant successfully completed the said course in December, 2012, till date, in spite of repeated reminders, no certificate pertaining to the said course has been issued by the OPs.  Therefore, the complaint case was filed.

As the OPs did not contest the case, the case was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 alleged that the Complainant did not clear a paper, namely, DRC-25; she had not submitted her project work and two assignments.  Therefore, appropriate market sheet was sent to Complainant’s Ld. Advocate through email.  The Ld. Advocate also disputed maintainability of the case on the ground that ‘education’ related matter does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that it only provided counselling and documents, as and when it received the same from the OP No. 3.  She claimed that, being the franchise of the OP No. 3, it cannot be held liable for non-receipt of certificate and/or mark-sheet, as alleged.

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also in the matter.

The bone of contention of the complaint case, as it transpires, revolves around non-receipt of Certificate/mark sheet being purportedly issued by the OP No. 1.  Such being the nature of allegation, which has got nothing to do with evaluation of answer scripts, declaration of sult or issuance of certificate, manifestly, the referred citations have no bearing in this case. 

Another crucial aspect bears mentioning here is the fact that the UGC vide its Regulations dated 25-11-1985 laid down the minimum standards of instructions of the grant of the first degree through non-formal/distance education.  With regard to Private Universities, the UGC laid down the UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards of Private Universities) Regulations, 2003.  These Regulations, inter alia, laid down that a Private University established under State Act shall operate ordinarily within the boundary of State concerned. 

In its celebrity judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Prof. Yashpal&Anr. V. State of Chattisgarh&Ors (2005) specifically considered the issue of extra territorial operation of State enactment in the form of establishment of Off campus centres, Off-shore campus and study centres and ultimately, in the light of the constitutional mandate as contained in Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, laid that ‘Parliament alone is competent in making laws in the whole or any part of the Territory of India and the legislative of State making laws for the whole or any part of State’. 

The effect and meaning of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Yashpal case is that each University in the country must have its own territorial jurisdiction and the State University established under the State Act cannot go beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State concerned to grant affiliation to any institution. 

Subsequently, the UGC vide its letter dated 16-04-2009 informed all the State Governments to take suitable steps for amending the existing State Acts so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore-mentioned case and with the request to the State Governments to stop all State/State-Private Universities from operating beyond the Territorial Jurisdiction of the State in any manner, either in the form of Off Campus/Study Centre/affiliated College and Centres operating through franchises. 

Seen against this backdrop, it is clearly evident that running said distant learning course by the OP No. 1 through other OPs was totally illegal. Thus, we find that the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice by running the said distant learning course which clearly comes within the realm of consumer dispute. 

Accordingly, allowing the complaint case, to our mind, was fully justified and so, we refrain from interfering with the same in any manner whatsoever.

The Appeals, accordingly, fail.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

Both the Appeals stand dismissed with a cost of Rs. 30,000 being equally payable by the OPs to the Complainant.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.

The original copy of this order be kept in the case record of Appeal No. A/850/2016  and a photocopy thereof in the case record of Appeal No. A/905/2016.