Order-16.

Date-21/09/2017.

        Shri Kamal De, President.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Complainant’s case, in short, is that OP1 is the approved study centre of OP2 who runs Open University.   OP3 is the competent authority to grant recognition to the University(U.G.C.).  The complainant took admission in the institute of OP1 on 18-06-2015 for a diploma course in mechanical engineering.  The course fee was Rs.54,000- for two years.  Complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards the fees of 3^rd and 4^th semester.  Complainant at the time of admission wanted to know from the OPs1 and 2 whether the course was affiliated under the University Grant Commission, i.e. OP3 but OPs1 and 2 declined to give any satisfactory reply regarding affiliation of the OP2 under the OP3.  At the time of examination of 3^rd semester on 01-08-2015 the complainant came to know that the OP2 was not affiliated under OP3.  The complainant also referred to the notice no.F.No.UGC/DEB/Ech.Edu./1/2015 dated 11-03-2015 issued by OP3 in the petition of complaint.  The complainant also came to know from the notice of OP3 issued in March, 2017 to the Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in which OP3 expressed that the Karnataka State Open University, Mysore requested UGC to consider the renewal of recognition of programmes, retrospectively.  UGC vide its letter dated 13-01-2016 has informed the University that the request of ex post facto approval for academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be acceded.  It is alleged by the complainant that the University does not have recognition or approval to offer programme through distant mode for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15. OPs 1 and 2 failed to conduct the examination of 4^th to 6^th semester of the diploma course in Mechanical Engineering in which the complainant took admission.  The complainant vide letter dated 14-07-2016 and 13-08-2016 requested OP1 to return the amount of Rs.27,000/- towards Course Fees of 3^rd and 4^th Semester but to no good.  It is alleged that the complainant has suffered monetary loss due to loss of two years of education life and also incurred loss in his service life for non-production of certificate before the employer for consideration of promotion in service.  Complainant has alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against OPs 1 and 2.  Hence, this case.

            OP1 has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable either in law or, in fact.  It is stated that this contesting OP has been authorized to establish and run exclusive study centre of Karnataka State Open University Manasagangotri, Mysore – 570 006, Karnataka, India through the academic collaborator Sandip Foundation [now Scope, University Regional Service Division, 5^th Floor, Koteswar Plaza, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai – 80] for conducting the distance education programme as per the MOU between Sandip Foundation and Karnataka State Open University.  It is stated that the complainant did not take admission for the Institute of the contesting OP but admitted in Coaching Classes of OP1 and whatever fees as alleged by the complainant was paid by him as tuition fees.  Moreover, complainant after taking all kind of information regarding OP took admission in taking coaching classes for his diploma course in Mechanical Engineering.  The complainant was admitted in the Institute in coaching classes.  It is also stated that this OP is engaged in counseling (teaching, learning) like conducting classes providing practical classes etc. as per the prescribed syllabus and guideline of the University.  It is stated that the complainant was provided the service of teaching and conducting of examination and issuance of certificate and mark-sheets are not the responsibility of the OP and those works also do not come within the purview of the OP.  The averment in Paragraphs 8 of the petition of complaint are denied.  It is stated that OP1 is never deficient or negligent in providing any services towards students.  It is stated that this OP has been holding/conducting the theoretical classes and practical classes in Diploma Course sincerely and honestly in the vicinity of Kolkata and students from other parts of West Bengal also took admission for study. The allegation of unfair trade practice is also denied as against this OP.  This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case. 

None came from the side of Karnataka State Open University (OP2) to contest the case and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP2.  OP3 University Grant Commission, however, was present during the trial of the case.  OP3, however, has not filed any written version but has filed BNA.

Point for Decision

1. Whether the OPs 1 and 2 have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
2. Whether the OPs 1 and 2 have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

We take up all the points together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.  Let us take a look towards documents filed from the side of the complainant – Xerox copy of admission in Pinnacle Institute of Engineering and Management, Xerox copy of Bank statement, Xerox copy of e-mails on different dates, Xerox copy of admission conducted by Karnataka State Open University, Xerox copy of mark-sheet of Karnataka State University, Xerox copy of circular of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigar and other documents on record. 

            No document, however, is filed from the side of the OPs 1 and 2.

            It appears that the complainant took admission in the OP1 Institute on 18-06-2015 for a Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering, the course fee was of Rs.54,000/- for 2 years and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- for the fees of 3^rd and 4^th semesters.  The question is whether the course was affiliated under the University Grants Commission.  It is alleged by the complainant that OP1 claimed that the course was affiliated under the University Grants Commission.  The question remains whether OP2 was affiliated under OP3. 

            The instant complaint is filed before this Forum by the complainant praying for a direction to the OP to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards course fees of 3^rd and 4^th semesters along with other prayer made therein.  We know that the UGC has been constituted under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 and which came into force w.e.f. 05-11-1956.  The act was enacted to make the provisions of the co-ordination and determination of standards in the Universities.  For the said purpose UGC has also been vested with the power to recommend to any university, the measures necessary for improvement of university education.  We find that OP1 is a private institution located in the State of West Bengal i.e. outside the state of Karnataka.  Karnataka State Open University, Mysore is a State University established by an Act of State Legislature.  It was accorded Institutional Recognition by erstwhile Distant Education Council, IGNOU from 2007-2008 to 2012-2013 to offer programmes  through distance mode.  No further recognition has been given to the University.  We also find from the documents filed from the side of OP3 that Ministry of Home Resources Development vide its DO No.6-7/2009-DL dated 29-07-2009 directed the DEC to withdraw permission for conduction BE/B. Tech Programme through distant mode on the basis of which DEC in August, 2009 wrote to all ODL providers to stop offering B.E./B.Tech programmes through distance mode from the year 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 distant education mode at Diploma, Bachelor and Master’s level in the field of Engineering and Technology.  UGC vide its public notice dated 11-03-2015 on professional courses in Engineering and Technology through distance mode stipulated that no university institution deemed to University/Institution should offer diploma, Bachelor and Master’s Level programme in Engineering and Technology other than MBA and MCA till the finalization of UGC (ODL) Regulations, 2014. 

Karnataka State Open University, Mysore being a State University can operate within a State only.  The University is not authorized to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Prof. Yash Pal vs. The State of Chattisgarh (2005).  The University was also required to follow the territorial jurisdiction policy of UGC as per its public notice dated 27-06-2013.  The UGC has not granted any approval to the University to open off – campus/study centre anywhere.  So, it is evident that OP1 has been conducting programmes offered by Karnataka State Open University, Mysore in an unauthorized manner.  The University 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 centres is not legal.  We are also fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Kerala in its judgment in Writ Petition (C) No.9779 of 2014 dated 20-12-2014 and also by the judgment of the Revision Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.15048 of 2016 in this regard and also by Hon’’ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in WP 13987 (W) of 2016 CAN 968 of 2017, CAN 970 of 2017, CAN 971 of 2017, CAN 2787 of 2017.  So, we are constrained to hold that a University established in a state cannot operate beyond territorial jurisdiction of the state.  UGC has also taken a serious view of misleading advertisements appearing in various regional 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.  So, we think that OP1 is illegally continuing to offer various programmes through distance learning mode in blatant violation of the terms, guidelines and directives of the UGC. 

As a logical corollary of discussion as made above and having regard to the materials on record the case is decided in favour of the complainant.  There can be no doubt that OPs 1 and 2 are offering distance education programme illegally and without having affiliation or recognition by UGC and also in utter violation of the norms, guidelines and directives of UGC. 
            Consequently, the case merits success.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP1 and ex parte against OP2.

            OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- to the complainant apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the date of this order.

            OPs 1 and 2 are also jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for loss of years, harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant within the said stipulated period.

            OPs 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to this Forum for indulging in unfair trade practice.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.