Hill Grove Cols Institute Of Pharmacy Behind Mahaveer Hospital vs. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences

Facts

The petitioner, Hill Grove Col’s Institute Of Pharmacy, applied for renewal of its annual affiliation for the academic session 2024-25 with the respondent, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS). The online application process generated an affiliation fee of Rs. 2,96,800/- plus 18% GST (Rs. 53,424/-), totaling Rs. 3,50,224/-. However, the portal displayed Rs. 60/- as 'already deposited fee', leading the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,50,164/-. RUHS subsequently issued a communication on 24.01.2024, stating a shortfall of Rs. 60/- and demanding re-submission with late fees and penalties as per their notification dated 30.11.2023. The petitioner represented that the 'already deposited fee' was automatically generated, and they cannot be held liable for the shortfall.

Held

The Court held that the shortfall of Rs. 60/- in the affiliation fee was likely due to confusion created by the online payment system on the respondent-university's website. While the respondent claimed the 'already deposited fee' column was manual, the Court found it improbable that this column would not also be automatically generated if other fee-related columns were. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid a substantial amount and the Rs. 60/- shortfall was minor. The Court also considered that the deficiency was communicated late, preventing the petitioner from rectifying it within the prescribed timeline. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned communications and directed the petitioner to deposit the Rs. 60/- shortfall along with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month. The respondent was directed to accept the payment and grant affiliation if other requirements were met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner-institute can be held liable for the Rs. 60/- shortfall in affiliation fees, considering the 'already deposited fee' column was automatically generated on the respondent-university's online portal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the 'already deposited fee' column was automatically generated by the respondent's official website, and they had no manual input in this regard. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for any shortfall arising from this automated generation. They also argue that if the deficiency had been communicated promptly, they would have rectified it before the deadline. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that the 'already deposited fee' column is to be filled manually by the institute and is not automatically generated. They claim the petitioner manually entered the amount, leading to the shortfall. The respondent relies on their notification dated 30.11.2023, which prescribes penalties for late submission.