Allowed

Mr Lakshitha Reddy v. the Chair Person

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023WP/22046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Writ jurisdiction directing Vydehi Institute to consider her request for fee refund and transfer certificate. Court noted UGC guidelines on pandemic refunds and directed respondents to examine applicability to her March 2022 admission.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation on 16.09.2022 while cognizance of UGC notification regarding fee refund.

Mr Lakshitha Reddy Vs the Chair Person — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24995 WP No. 22046 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22046 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. LAKSHITHA REDDY, D/O. M. VENKATESWARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT. NO.15/18, RANGAPPA NAIDU COLONY, BURMA STREET, MADANAPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 325.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMI REDDY E., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE CHAIR PERSON, VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTER, NO.82, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, VYDEHI INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTER, NO.82, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:24995 WP No. 22046 of 2022

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this court seeking a mandamus against the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 16.09.2022.

¶22

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶23

The petitioner joined respondent No.2/college to

¶24

pursue Bachelor of Dental Science on 10.03.2022 and paid an admission fee of Rs.6,68,473/-. A further amount of Rs.88,000/- was deposited towards miscellaneous fees on 14.03.2022. The petitioner failed to attend the class on account of her ill health. The petitioner submitted a representation on 05.07.2022 to respondent No.2/college

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:24995 WP No. 22046 of 2022

¶26

¶27

with a request to issue a transfer certificate and return all other certificates.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that respondent No.2/college refused to issue transfer certificate and other certificates and demanded to deposit a balance fee of Rs.6,50,000/-, which is towards the next three years fee. Pursuant to the demand made by respondent No.2/college, petitioner has deposited the balance fee. On receipt of amount, it appears that respondent No.2/college has issued a transfer certificate, which is annexed to the writ petition vide Annexures-E and F.

¶29

The petitioner, placing reliance on the notification dated 02.08.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission, is seeking a refund of entire tuition fee. Though respondents have served and engaged a counsel, there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24995 WP No. 22046 of 2022

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the said notification. The University Grants Commission has issued guidelines to the colleges in regard to refund of fees and in the said notification, directed the colleges to refund fees on account of cancellation of admissions on account of the COVID pandemic, which led to the migration of students. Therefore, the University Grants Commission felt that there should be a zero calculation period and the entire fee, including all charges, should be refunded. Respondents No.1 and 2 are required to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit in terms of said notification when, admittedly, the petitioner has secured admission on 10.03.2022.

¶32

Be that as it may. Since there is no contest by respondents No.1 and 2, and the representation submitted by the petitioner is not dealt with by the respondents, I deem it fit to issue directions to the respondents.

¶33

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:24995 WP No. 22046 of 2022

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶38

ii. Respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the representation dated 16.09.2022 vide Annexure-H submitted by the petitioner. While considering the representation, respondents No.1 and 2 shall take cognizance of the notification dated 02.08.2022 and examine whether the petitioner falls within the category as indicated under the notification/guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission;

¶39

iii. It is made clear that respondents No.1 and 2 shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

HDK CT:SNN

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

Mr Lakshitha Reddy v. the Chair Person

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Lakshitha Reddy v. the Chair Person

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajju Stephen Vs the State of Karnataka

Alvas Homeopathic Medical College Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri.Kenchappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Begum Hajira Muzaina Vs Sri.Janab Mohammed Syed Khan

Smt Akshatha M D Vs Sri Naveen N

Sri. Subbarayappa Vs Sri.K.T.Sudarshan