Partly allowed
Devalla Bhavitha Reddy v. Smt. Poonam Malakondaiah
Andhra Pradesh HCCC/173/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
& RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of…
What the court decided
AI extract
& RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
C.C.No.173 of 2019 and C.R.P.No.1433 of 2021
ORDER : ( Per Hon’ble Sri AVSS,J )
Heard Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.C.No.173 of 2019 and learned counsel for the respondents in C.R.P.No.1433 of 2021 and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.173 of 2019 and learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1433 of 2021.
“Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for R5. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.
The impugned order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the second respondent is questioned in the writ petition, primarily, on the ground that previous deficiencies pointed out on two occasions were fully complied with and in spite of that, under the impugned
2 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
order fresh set of deficiencies are again pointed out.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that so far as first deficiency pointed out is concerned, it is contrary to regulation 8(3) (1)(b) of MCI Regulations wherein it is provided that deficiency of more than 20% will disentitle renewal of permission whereas in the present case the deficiency is stated to be only 7.92%. Similarly, with regard to other deficiencies also it is stated that they are contrary to the record and refusal to grant permission is accordingly questioned.
Prima facie, the impugned order appears to be arbitrary. Hence, Rule Nisi. Call for records.
Notice returnable in four (4) weeks.
There shall be interim direction on par with the order passed by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1879 of 2015 dated 15.09.2015 as under:
1. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to grant provisional permission to the petitioners to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-2016 subject to further orders of this Court.
2. Petitioners shall be permitted to admit students for the academic year 2015-2016 for first year MBBS course subject to further orders of this Court.
3. Any allotment and admissions made by the petitioners, accordingly, shall be notified to each of the admitted student that the admission is based on provisional permission and subject to further orders of this Court and no equities can be claimed by any student.
Let respondents file counter affidavit. List W.P.M.P after four (4) weeks.”
Letters Patent Appeal vide W.A.No.1101 of 2015 and the Division Bench of the common High Court, by way of an order dated 20.04.2016, dismissed the main Writ Petition No.31371 of 2015
and para 39 of the said order, which is relevant for the issue on hand read as follows:
“we are informed that as a consequence to the interim orders granted by this Court, 2nd petitioner admitted the students for the academic year 2015-2016 of its own. In other words, the students admitted were not allotted to the petitioner-college by the respondents. In paragraph (iii) of the order dated 29.09.2015 of this Court, it was made clear that the students allotted and admissions made pursuant to the interim orders should be notified that the admission is based on provisional permission and subject to further orders of the Court and no equities could be claimed by any student. We direct the petitioners to refund forthwith the entire amount collected from the students towards fee and other expenses. We also make it clear that the order does not come in the way of students to work out their remedies as available in law against the petitioners. If so advised.”
NTR University and also the students, filed SLP(C) No.15166 of 2016, before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequent to the
3 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said Special Leave Petition, Dr.N.T.R.University of Health Sciences issued proceedings No.7086/ MBBS/BDS/EA1/2016, dated 08.07.2016, and the last
para of the said proceedings reads as follows:
“In view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India all the admissions made into Fatima Institute of Medical Sciences, KAdapa under ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ category seats are stands cancelled. The Principal, Fatima Institute of Medical Sciences, Kadapa is requested to implement the orders of Hon’ble High Court & Supreme Court in toto & also to inform the students about cancellation of their admission on the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Principal is hereby directed to refund forthwith the entire amount collected from the students towards fee and other expenses.”
para 10 read as follows:
“10. The matter can be looked at from another angle. In case we allow the present writ petition filed by the students and regularize the admission, the same would tantamount to annulling the effect of the order passed in the writ petition filed by the management which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petition of the management was not dismissed on merits but dismissed on the short ground that they were guilty of suppression of material facts, we do not think that what this Court wanted to deprive the management, can be indirectly secured by them by setting up the students. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to meet with the same fate as was met by writ petition filed by the management. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.”
4 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
up before this Court on 20.01.2020, Division Bench passed the
following order:
“In the present case, the dispute is revolving around the order dated 20.04.2016 passed in W.P.No.31371 of 2015 and W.A.No.1101 of 2015, whereby non-applicant Nos.3 and 4 were directed to refund forthwith the entire amount collected from the students towards fee and other expenses. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-refund of the entire amount that includes fee and other expenses. However, notices were issued, taking note of the fact that the receipt dated 18.10.2015, bearing Ref.No.1610/15-16, for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards tuition fee for the academic year 2015-16, and another receipt dated 21.04.2016, bearing Ref.No.1672/15-16, for a sum of Rs.44,50,000/- towards tuition fee for the academic year 2015-18, both signed by the Accounts Officer, namely Meda Ramakrishna, were on record. But, an affidavit of Meda Ramakrishna, dated 11.01.2020, has been filed, denying the issuance of the receipt dated 21.04.2016 and alleged that the said receipt was created by the applicants, by forging the signature.
On perusal of the signature on the receipt dated 21.04.2016 as well as on the affidavit of Meda Ramakrishna, prima facie, it appears that both of them resemble.
It is also to be noted that along with the rejoinder, the applicants filed a CD, in which conversation of non-applicant No.4 posing threats to the applicants is recorded. The applicants have also filed another receipt for cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, at page No.15 of the rejoinder.
As there is a dispute on the quantum of total deposit of fee, as made by non-applicant Nos.3 and 4, however, the admitted sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was directed to be refunded in view of the directions, subject to further orders. The admitted amount has already been received by the applicants, but for compliance of the order regarding amount to which document is filed, an enquiry may be proper.
Considering the facts of the case and looking to the circumstances, it reveals that the fee receipt as produced by the applicants has been denied and stated that it was not issued from the office of the college, but the signature of the Accounts Officer, Meda Ramakrishna, prima facie matches with the signature on the affidavit filed by him. Therefore, to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the contempt petition, which are denied by the other side, this Court deems it appropriate to get an enquiry conducted through the senior-most Senior Civil Judge concerned, i.e., the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, to the said issues, within a time frame.
Accordingly, while keeping this case pending, we issue the following directions:
1) the parties present in the Court, including Meda Ramakrishna, who filed the affidavit along with the reply of non-applicants 3 and 4, shall appear before Smt.M.Subhavani, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, on 27.01.2020.
2) The Principal Senior Civil Judge, after marking the presence of
5 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
non-applicants 3 and 4 as well as Meda Ramakrishna, shall obtain the specimen signatures of Meda Ramakrishna and send the same, along with the signature on the affidavit dated 11.01.2020 and the signature on the fee receipt dated 21.04.2016, for comparison and report by the State Handwriting Examiner through Forensic Science Laboratory, on the same day.
3) The report be made available to the Court within a month from the said date; otherwise, the Head of the FSL would be held responsible for the delay.
4) On receiving the report from the Examiner, the applicants as well as non-applicant Nos.3 and 4 and also Meda Ramakrishna, be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence that includes the record of the Institute, the staff as posted in the Institute, and also with respect to the CD as produced before this Court as well as other evidence and issues if any raised with respect to deposit of amount by the applicants and denied by the other side.
5) After completion of evidence within a month, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, the report be made available with the findings within two weeks to this Court.
6) On preparation of the report by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, copies of the said report be supplied to both the parties, thereby, they would be at liberty to file their objections on or before the next date of listing of this Contempt Case.
7) If necessary, the Principal Senior Civil Judge may list the case on day-to-day basis for conclusion of the enquiry but it should not be delayed. If any support is required from the Government, it be offered without any excuse by the departmental officials and the report be made available as directed herein above.
8) Registry is directed to send the original file, keeping copy of the complete file in record of this Court, to the Principal Senior Civil Judge through the Principal District Judge, by a special messenger forthwith.”
i) whether, the fee receipt dated 21.04.2016, for a sum of Rs.44,50,000/- is true and valid?
6 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
ii) whether the fee receipt dated 21.04.2016, for the said amount is a created one, by forging the signature of Meda Ramakrishna as contended by the respondents/non applicant Nos.3 and 4 and Meda Ramakrishna?
report dated 17.01.2022 and para Nos.19 and 20 of the said
report read as follows:
19) In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the fee receipt (Ex.P.1) dt.21-4-2016 for Rs.44.50,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs and fifty thousand only) is not true and valid, but the same is a created one by forging the signature of Meda Ramakrishna. Accordingly, point Nos.1 & 2 are decided against the petitioners/applicants and in favour of the respondent Nos.3 & 4/non applicant Nos.3 & 4 and Meda Ramakrishna.
20) It is relevant to note here that Photostat copy of undertaking letter allegedly signed by the student/petitioner No.1/applicant No.1 and her mother being guardian, was marked as Ex.R.1 by the respondent Nos.3 & 4/non applicant Nos.3 & 4 and Meda Rama Krishna. The said Ex.R.1 was marked subject to objection as the same is Photostat copy. Since it is reported by the said respondent Nos.3 & 4/non applicant Nos.3 & 4 and Meda Rama Krishna that the original is in the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.31371/2015, the same was permitted to be marked. The said undertaking letter (Ex.R.1) shows that the petitioner No.1/applicant No.1 and her mother have executed the said undertaking letter stating that they are aware that the admission for M.B.B.S course is given based on the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.31371 of 2015, dated 29.09.2015 and the said admission is subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the said writ petition. The execution of the said undertaking letter (Ex.R.1) is denied by petitioner No.2/applicant No.2. However, no step was taken by the respondents/non applicants 3 & 4 and Meda Rama Krishna to prove the same by summoning the petitioner No.1/applicant No.1 or her mother, who are said to have executed the said undertaking letter. Moreover, the said undertaking letter (Ex.R.1) is found neither helpful to the petitioners/applicants nor to the respondent Nos.3 & 4/non applicant Nos.3 & 4 and Meda Rama Krishna, in this enquiry so as to find out the truth or otherwise of the fee receipt (Ex.P.1) dt.2104.2016.”
7 AVSS,J & RC,J CC.No.179 of 2019 and CRP No.1433 of 2021
the said report cannot be undertaken by this Court. At the same time, the petitioners herein, if they are really aggrieved cannot be made remedy less.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these cases, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J
__________________________ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J
Date:22.03.2022 vsl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a roving enquiry was necessary to determine objections against the enquiry report submitted by the Principal Senior Civil Judge.
How to dispose of the Contempt Case pending on the report while providing remedy to aggrieved petitioners.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
AVSS
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court