Dismissed

Dr N Mahalingam v. Rajeev Gandhi University

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2014WP/37815/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, father and daughter, sought return of admission certificates and refund of MBBS fees after the daughter discontinued studies due to unhospital conditions and ill health. The court dismissed the petition as there was no merit, noting the fee was legally non-refundable once admission was made under management quota, despite claims of coercion and deposits.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petitions in their entirety, refusing to direct the return of certificates or refund of fees.

Dr N Mahalingam Vs Rajeev Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.37815-37816 OF 2011 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Dr. N. Mahalingam, Son of Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Residing at Door No.1348, Venkatesapuram, Sathy Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 106.

¶9

Smt. G.M. Anitha, Daughter of Dr. N. Mahalingam, Aged about 28 years, Residing at No.1348, Sathy Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(By Shri. M. Veerabhadraiah, Advocate [absent] )

¶12

AND:

¶13

Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

¶14

¶15

by its Registrar, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041.

¶16

M.V.J. Medical College and Research Hospital, By its Director, No.30^th Km, Kolathur Post, Hoskote, Bangalore – 562 114.

¶17

Venkatesha Education Society, (A Linguistic Minority Institution) By its Secretary, No.125, Armstrong Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶18

Medical Council of India, Pocket -14, Sector – 8, Dwaraka Phase -1, New Delhi – 110 077, Represented by its Secretary.

¶19

[cause title amended As per the Court order Dated 21.10.2013]

¶20

RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Shri. N.K. Ramesh , Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. M. Vijaya Krishna Bhat, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶22

Shri. Zulfikar Kumar Shafi, Advocate for Respondent No.4 )

¶23

¶24

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent nos.1 to 3 to return the original certificates of Annexure-A1 to A4 illegally withheld by the second respondent college given for the admission of the second petitioner I M.B.B.S. Course with register No.01M4603 to the petitioners and etc;

¶25

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioners is absent and a

¶28

request is made for an adjournment on his behalf. The same is refused and the petition is considered on merits having regard

¶29

to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

The petitioners are the father and daughter. It is claimed that the second petitioner was admitted to the First year MBBS Course of the second respondent – College and the entire course fee of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid in the first instance itself under threat that if the fee is not paid in entirety in the very beginning, the candidate would have to pay the twice the amount of fees. It is under such compulsion that the entire fee was paid apart from paying donation of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is

¶31

¶32

stated that the petitioners hail from Tamil Nadu and had also furnished the original certificates pertaining to the school examination and other testimonials. It is alleged that in the second year, she was admitted to the College hostel but, on account of the unhygienic food that was served, that the petitioner took ill and therefore, was hospitalized and slipped into depression on account of the situation and had to be taken back home.

¶33

In this regard, the first petitioner had sought for refund

¶34

of the tuition fee after deducting the first year’s fee out of the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Though there was an assurance that it would be done, the amount was not refunded. In any event, the second petitioner discontinued her studies after July 2002 and there was no refund made, as promised. There was exchange of correspondence in this regard and ultimately, a legal notice was issued in the year 2009. A reply was furnished denying the claim of the petitioners for refund. On the other hand, it was stated that the petitioner was bound to pay

¶35

¶36

additional fees. It is in that background, that the present petition is filed.

¶37

At the outset, it is to be noticed that admittedly, the

¶38

second petitioner had discontinued her studies in the year 2002 and the present petition is filed in the year 2011. There is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay in filing the present petition. The petition is filed with a prayer for return of the original documents that have been furnished to the college apart from the refund of the fees paid.

¶39

It is stated at the bar that the original documents have been returned, which was duly acknowledged by the petitioners. Insofar as the refund of the fee is concerned, it is pointed out that the fee received cannot be refunded, since it is the settled legal possession, as held by this court in such circumstances, that once an admission is made against Management Quota, the seat would be reserved for the said candidate and if for some reason, the candidate withdraws, the seat would remain vacant through out the course. To that

¶40

¶41

extent, the institution would suffer the loss of the fee that it should have received as against such admission and therefore, the question of refund of the fee would not arise. Since it is also claimed that the fee paid was not the entire tuition fee, but only a part of it, the petitioners would be liable to make good the remaining amount and it is, in fact, the petitioners, who will have to pay the further amounts and would not be entitled to any such refund.

¶42

Given the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in

¶43

this petition and the petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Dr N Mahalingam v. Rajeev Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr N Mahalingam v. Rajeev Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K P Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Nitheesh Narayanan Vs Secretary

Mr P J Damian Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Mahadi Hussain S/O Late Mushtaq Ali Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Venkateshwara Developers Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike