Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

By filing this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 05-09-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in CC/52/2016.

Appellant’s daughter took admission at the Respondent Institute for pursuing BBA Course.  Besides this, she also joined the computer training and spoken English course being conducted by the Respondent as they gave 100% placement guarantee.  It is alleged that though Appellant’s daughter cleared the final examination, the Respondent failed to provide mark sheet and certificate and also, she was not provided any placement as promised at the time of admission.  Therefore, the complaint case was filed.

The Respondent, however, denied all the material allegation of the complaint.  It submitted that, after passing BBA and other courses, students get jobs through the Respondent Institute upon fulfillment of certain conditions.  It was further submitted that the Respondent is/was only the affiliated study centre of Punjab Technical University and it only facilitated coaching to enable them prepare for the examination.  Respondent is/was not authorized to issue marksheet, certificate etc. The Respondent also stated in its WV that the Appellant’s daughter duly received the marksheet and certificate from the University concerned.  The Respondent, accordingly, denied any laches/deficiency in service on its part.

Be it mentioned here that the Respondent initially appeared through its Ld. Advocate.  However, as no one turned on behalf of the Respondent at the time of hearing, the Appeal was heard in its absence.

It appears from the material on record that the Appellant’s daughter cleared BBA examination in the year 2015, she received the mark sheet only in the year 2016, more precisely, on 09-07-2016. 

The Respondent through sought to shrug off any responsibility in the matter on the ground that it is merely an affiliated study centre of the University concerned, we feel, that could not be a valid ground to exonerate it of all charges.  Being the interface between students and the University concerned, it was required to maintain proper liaison with the University in question to relieve students from unwarranted harassments/mental stress and agony. 

Coming to the aspect of placement facility, the Respondent although stated in its WV that employment was provided to students upon fulfillment of requisite guideline of the Institution, it neither elaborated this aspect further nor underlined the areas where the Appellant’s daughter lagged behind.

In any case, the most important factor that has come to our notice is that in the matter of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. V. State of Chattisgarh & Ors (2005), the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 down 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 Supreme 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. No document is forthcoming before us to suggest that the statutory authorities like UGC/AICTE had granted any approval to the Punjab Technical University to open study centre/off campus centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Punjab.

In the light of above, it appears to us that the course pursued by the Appellant’s daughter has no legal sanctity. As an authorized study centre of the Punjab Technical University, we, thus, hold the Respondent guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices. 

Considering all aspects, therefore, we direct the Respondent to pay compensation for a sum of 2,50,000/- to the Appellant along with litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- within 40 days from today, i.d., the decretal amount shall carry interest (simple) @ 9% p.a. over the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.  We set aside the impugned order.  Consequently, the Appeal stands allowed.