In LPA-716-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC directs  RGNUL, Patiala to charge only 50% of hostel rent from students for COVID period and refund remaining deposited amount to students within 4 weeks
Justices Augustine George Masih & Vikram Aggarwal  [21-11-2022]

Read Order: Aditya Kashyap and Others v. State of Punjab and Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, November 23, 2022: While dealing with a Letters Patent Appeal by the undergraduate students of the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala (second respondent), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed that, in addition to the benefit that has already been given to the students, the university would charge only 50% of the hostel rent from the students for the COVID period and would refund the remaining amount to the students (if so deposited) within a period of four weeks. 

Reflecting on the plight of people during the COVID period, the Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Vikram Aggarwal held, 

“Those were tough times for everyone. The students were out of the hostel rooms not out of choice but out of compulsion. Their belongings were left in the rooms. There was panic and fear all around. Those who did not have secure jobs were suddenly faced with loss of income.”

Further, the Bench added, 

“While people were trying to make their ends meet, the burden of fees etc. was putting them under additional pressure. The institutions also suffered because they had to maintain huge buildings, staff etc. If one weighs all these facts, there does not appear to be any justification for charging the entire hostel rent from the students especially when only 25% of the rent had been charged from the contractors of mess, shops, canteens etc.”

Regular classes at RGNUL were suspended on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the students were asked to vacate the hostel premises. The classes were conducted virtually. In light of this, the students submitted a representation for reduction/waiver of fees under various heads. A subsequent representation with a similar request was also submitted to the Dean, Students Welfare of the University. 

The matter was taken up by the Finance Committee. In its meeting, the Finance Committee took a decision that the annual increase of Rs. 5,000/- in the tuition fee for the academic year 2020-21 would be waived off and that mess charges would not be taken till the operations of the mess resumed.

Later, via a notice, the students were called upon to deposit the fee for the next semester in accordance with the aforesaid decision. Against the said notice, the students preferred another representation and also preferred a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission. Legal remedies by way of a legal notice were also initiated but having failed to get any relief, the present appellants preferred a writ petition. 

The university took up several grounds including the writ petition having been filed only by a handful of students, and, therefore, lacking sufficient representative character; the University being a creation of statute was bound to function in accordance with its provisions; the fee structure having been approved by the relevant statutory bodies etc. The amount being spent by the University on various facilities being provided to the students was also detailed. It was also stated that the students had locked their rooms while leaving the hostel and, therefore, the possession remained with them as a result of which the students were bound to pay the hostel rent. 

The Finance Committee’s decision was also defended by the university. The proposed facilities for the students were also detailed in the written statement. It was also averred that the appellants have not placed on record any proof that their parents were undergoing any financial hardship and, therefore, the demand for additional fee reduction was unreasonable. 

Vide the impugned judgement, the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition while holding that the decision taken by the Finance Committee in the notice was not perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary. The Single Bench, however, observed that the university would sympathetically consider the individual cases for waiver of late fee charges on the basis of material produced before it. The State of Punjab was also directed to objectively consider the release of arrears pertaining to the year 2019-20.

On August 29, 2022, the Court ordered the counsel for the parties to work out the details on the aspect of the late fee. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the university filed an affidavit again giving the details with regard to the fee structure and the decision taken by the university and the Finance Committee. 

The appellants’ Counsel stated that in pursuance to the undertaking given by counsel for the university, a lengthy affidavit was filed by the university again giving all the intricate details with regard to the expenses, fee schedule etc. whereas, the affidavit should have been filed in terms of the order. The Counsel further submitted that it was highly unfair that only 25% charges were charged from the Contractors of mess, shops and canteens whereas full rent was charged from the students on the flimsy ground that the possession of the rooms was with the students whereas in one of those meetings, it was observed that the shops etc. was retained by such contractors.

It was also the Counsel’s submission that the students were in possession of the rooms not out of choice but out of compulsion as it was difficult for anyone to return to the premises on account of the pandemic. The counsel reiterated that if 50% of the hostel charges were waived off, it would be a big relief for the students. He argued that the Single Bench wrongly observed that the University already gave a reduction of 17.8% whereas 15% of Rs.20,06,000/- would come to Rs.30,000/-.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that it is true that the High Court could not be in a position to determine intricate issues with regard to the fee charged by the university under various heads or the fee which should have been or could have been charged from the students including the appellants.

It was further observed by the Court that the Single Bench rightly held that such disputes would be decided by the relevant Regulatory Authority on the basis of the material produced before it. 

Further, the fact that annual increase of Rs.5,000/- was waived off by the university and an additional amount of Rs.14,782/- was refunded to every student, was taken note of by the Court. The only thing which weighed in the mind of the High Court was that the university charged only 25% of the rent from the contractors of mess, canteens, shops etc., and there was absolutely no justification in charging the entire hostel rent from the students.

Reflecting on the COVID situation, the Court held, 

“Those were tough times for everyone. The students were out of the hostel rooms not out of choice but out of compulsion. Their belongings were left in the rooms. There was panic and fear all around. Those who did not have secure jobs were suddenly faced with loss of income.”

Further, the Bench added, 

“While people were trying to make their ends meet, the burden of fees etc. was putting them under additional pressure. The institutions also suffered because they had to maintain huge buildings, staff etc. If one weighs all these facts, there does not appear to be any justification for charging the entire hostel rent from the students especially when only 25% of the rent had been charged from the contractors of mess, shops, canteens etc.”

The argument that the University could not offer the hostel for COVID isolation centre was found by the Court to be devoid of merit because during the course of arguments, a question was put to the university’s counsel as to whether the university would have had some financial benefit if COVID isolation centre had been set up in the hostel, the university counsel conceded that there would be no financial benefit as the Government would not have paid anything for the same.

“That being so, the non-opening of COVID isolation centre in the hostel would not affect the merits of the issue in hand. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 is not justified in charging the full hostel rent from the students for the period in question”, the Court held. 

Thus, the Court directed that in addition to the benefit that was already given to the students, the university would charge only 50% of the hostel rent from the students for the period in question and would refund the remaining amount to the students (if so deposited) within a period of four weeks. 

“Since respondent No.2 would still be left with 50% of the hostel rent, the same, in our considered opinion, would be sufficient for the expenses which respondent No.2 may have incurred on the repair and maintenance of the hostel rooms, post the pandemic”, the Court held.