2025:HHC:29956 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 549 of 2021 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Shrvan Kumar Lahoti and others … Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh National Law University and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : M/s Srishti Chauhan and Pratiksha Chandel, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate through VC and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. Issue writ of certiorari quashing no. no. notice HPNLU/FEES/2020-21/2713 dated 16.07.2020, notice HPNLU/FEES/2020-21/2742 dated 05.08.2020, notice no. HPNLU/FEES/2020-21-3060dated 19.08.20211 and setting aside the demand raised upon the Petitioners therein and Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent no.1 to re-formulate 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29956 the academic fees schedule for the academic year 2020-21 after adjusting/setting-off the part academic fees charged for previous academic year 2019-20 and removing charges for facilities and services not being provided by the respondent university and/or not being availed by the petitioners; B. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing notice issued in November 2020 and notice dated 14.12.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 1 and Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to declare and notify the results of 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th semester end-term examination held in September-October 2020 irrespective of the payment status of the petitioners for the current academic year fees; C. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing notices nos. HPNLU. B(12)-20(NOTICE)/2020/- 272 dated 31.12.2020 and notice no HPNLU-B(12)-20(NOTICE)/2020-/282 dated 20.01.2020 and Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent no. 1 to allow the Petitioners to sit for their re appear/improvement examination starting on 27.01.2021' irrespective of the payment status of the fees for the current academic year; D. Writ of Certiorari quashing notice No. HPNLU-E-(1)- 13(NOTICE)2021/-618 dated 02.01.2021 and writ of mandamus restraining the respondent no.1 from vacating the hostel rooms and allow the petitioners to continue occupation of the same.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that 3 2025:HHC:29956 during the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioners did not avail any of the facilities, for which the payment was made to the University but despite this, the refund thereof has been denied to the petitioners ignoring the fact that the instructions/requests in this regard were received by the University not only from the students but also from the Bar Council of India. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- University has taken the Court through the reply filed by the University and submitted that the University had to incur additional expenses to cope up with COVID-19 pandemic so as to provide online education to the students as stands spelled out in the reply. Learned Counsel further submitted that though the Hostels where the students were residing, of course, were vacated but fact of the matter remains that these were all private buildings which were hired by the University for Hostels etc. and the land owners were paid the rent by the University for the period in issue. Learned Counsel further submitted that otherwise also, except relief (A), other reliefs have lost efficacy with the passage of time as the petitioners have now graduated from the respondent-University and as per him, even relief (A) has no merit. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the dispute involved in the present petition, this Court is of the considered view that reliefs No. (B) to (D) prayed for in 4 2025:HHC:29956 the petition, obviously, have lost efficacy as the petitioners have graduated from the respondent-University. As far as relief (A) is concerned, same involves disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be decided in the absence of any evidence being led by the parties to substantiate their respective contentions and this cannot be done by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioners are so advised, they may approach the appropriate Civil Court for the redressal of the grievances, as are contained in prayer (A) of the petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (narender)