Costs paid.

          This order shall dispose of Revision Petition No.814 and Revision Petition No.987 of 2006 as the point involved in both the

-2-

Revision Petitions is the same.  Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.987/2006.

          Daughter of the respondent took admission in one of the colleges of the petitioner and paid a sum of Rs.58,500/- as tuition fee.  After coming to know that she had been given admission on All India Basis from CBSE Delhi at Chandigarh on 23.8.2002, respondent applied for withdrawal of the admission and refund of fee, security and other charges.  Respondent was refunded a sum of Rs. 2500/-   only.  Aggrieved against this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Stand taken by the petitioner was that the fee deposited by the respondent could be forfeited as per provisions of clause 4.5. (b) of Information Bulletin.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the fee deposited by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, Rs.5000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

          Aggrieved against order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order with the modification setting

-3-

aside the amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- and enhancing costs of litigation from Rs.1000/- to Rs.5000/-.  In all, petitioner was directed to pay sum of Rs.63,500/-.

          On 27.1.2009, we had directed the petitioner to put on record copy of provision in the Act, Rule, Regulation or Resolution, if any, passed by the Senate showing that the after the cut of date, the     candidate would not be entitled to seek refund of the fee deposited by him except the amount stipulated in the brochure.

          Counsel for the petitioner has put on record the Guru Gobind Indraprastha University Calender, 2006.  She relies upon the Clause 24 of the Act, Statutes & Ordinances which provides “to prescribe fees for affiliation of colleges and institutions.  This Clause only talks about the fee which can be prescribed by the University for affiliation of colleges and the institutions.  The same does not deal with the powers given to the institution to charge fee or refund of fee once the admission is withdrawn.  Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show from the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations or Resolution authorizing the petitioner to withhold the amount deposited, on withdrawal of admission by the candidate.  Counsel for the petitioner

-4-

relying upon an affidavit filed by the University contends that the seat vacated by the petitioner remained vacant.  Petition has not given the details of number of the seats, the number of vacancies and the number of waiting list which could throw light as to whether the seat remained vacant due to withdrawal of admission by the respondent.

          Facts in Revision Petition No.814/2006 are somewhat different but point involved is the same.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.