$~172. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010450592026 + LPA 756/2026 DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR......Appellants Through: Mr. Sandeep Garg and Mr. Shobhit Gupta, Advs. Versus DEVYANI MEENA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashistha, Mr. Siddhartha Goswami and Mr. Aditya Sachdeva, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 21.09.2026 C.M. No. 64897/2026 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 756/2026 & CM Nos.64896/2026 & 64898/2026 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This intra-Court appeal filed by Delhi Technological University takes exception to the judgment and order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.( C) 12869/2026 instituted by the respondent No.1 has been allowed and her admission which was cancelled on account of non-deposit of fee has been restored. The learned Single Judge has further provided that the respondent shall deposit the academic fee of Rs.1,74,700/- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 10:50:33 to the appellant within a week. 5. The respondent was admitted to B.Tech course run by the appellant university on the basis of a selection held for the said purpose. She, accordingly, deposited the seat acceptance fee and also got her documents physically verified on 17.06.2026. The respondent also opted for hostel accommodation and started residing in the appellant university, however, the academic fee of Rs.1,74,000/- could not be deposited by her, as a result whereof the admission was cancelled on 11.08.2026. 6. Had it been a simple case of cancellation of admission on the ground of non-deposit of academic fee, we would have, in all likelihood, endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge, however, certain intervening developments which took place after cancellation of admission of the respondent, vide notice dated 11.08.2026, persuade us to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. After issuance of the notice dated 11.08.2026 whereby the admission of the respondent was cancelled, spot round counselling took place and the seat against which the respondent was pursuing her course was allotted to another candidate pursuant to which he might have taken admission and, therefore, as a result of the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 if the respondent is offered admission, that will impact the admission of the student who was admitted on the basis of spot round cancelling. 8. Accordingly, having regard to the impact of the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the directions issued therein. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that, in fact, proper notices were not issued by the appellant-University asking for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 10:50:33 making deposit of the academic fee; neither they were served either on the respondent or upon her parents/father and further that the respondent belongs to the reserved category of scheduled tribe and it is not that she or her family members were not in a position to make deposit of the fee rather the fee could not be deposited on account of the fact that proper information/notice could not be received; neither any such notice was served upon the respondent or his father appropriately. 10. The said facts, however, are being denied by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. Be that as it may, since the appellant university was deprived of its opportunity of putting forth its case by filing of counter affidavit to the averments made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, no finding on what is being urged before us by learned counsel representing the respondent can be given by us. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal. 13. The proceedings of W.P.( C) 12869/2026 are revived and the petition is restored to its original number. The writ petition be, thus, accordingly, listed before the learned Single Judge. 14. Having regard to the urgency and the fact that third party rights have been created, we direct that the appellant shall file its counter affidavit in the proceedings of the writ petition within 03 days from today. Two days thereafter shall be available to the respondent to file the response/rejoinder, if any, and the matter shall be listed before the learned Single Judge on 28.09.2026. 15. We request the learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 10:50:33 writ petition and decide the same finally as early as possible. 16. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 N.Khanna This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 10:50:33