Allowed

Chousan Collage of Education v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/104794/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A college sought refund of Rs.2.5 lakh deposited with its former affiliating university as reserve fund after bifurcation of universities. The university agreed to refund subject to production of original receipts. The court directed refund without interest.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.2,50,000/- by first respondent University to petitioner upon furnishing original receipts; interest denied.

Chousan Collage of Education Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104794/2016(EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHOUSAN COLLAGE OF EDUCATION, (B.ED. AND M.ED. DEGREE PROGRAM), (AN INSTITUTION OF CHOUSAN EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)), CHOUGALE HILLA, CHIKODI - NIPANI ROAD, CHIKKODI DIST: BELAGAVI, BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶15

THE FINANCE OFFICER, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶18

DIRECTOR, COLLAGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY VIDYASANGAMA, POONA – BENGALURU, NATIONAL HIGH WAY-04, BELAGAVI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED; SRI ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO REFUND THE FD AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER WITH INTEREST. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 NOT TO INSIST THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION FOR DEPOSIT AMOUNT FOR AFFILIATION AS THE PETITIONER HAS ALREADY DEPOSITED THE REQUIRED AMOUNT WITH THE NCTE FOR BOTH B.Ed AND M.Ed DEGREE PROGRAMS AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner/College seeking direction to the first respondent University to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited on 13.2.1986, Rs.1,00,000/- deposited on 3.3.1986, Rs.1,00,000/- deposited on 7.9.2010 towards reserve fund on the premise that earlier petitioner college was that affiliated to the first respondent University and that subsequent to formation of the fourth respondent University, the petitioner Institution has come within it’s purview, as such, aforesaid amount deposited with the first respondent University be refunded.

¶26

It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent University had called upon the petitioner herein to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as affiliation deposits vide letters dated 3.12.2015 and 22.1.2016 produced at Annexures-H and J to the writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite several requests and reminders, the first respondent University has defaulted. It neither transferred the amount directly to the

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶29

fourth respondent University nor did it refund the amount to the petitioner.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent University has withheld the deposits belonging to the petitioner without any justification. As such, the first respondent University is liable to pay interest thereon.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent University taking through the statement of objections filed and documents enclosed therewith, more particularly, the notification dated 11.12.2012 produced at Annexure-R3 submits that soon after bifurcation of the Universities, all the institutions which are affiliated with the first respondent University were notified regarding refund of the amount and were also called upon to submit the original receipts for enabling the first respondent University to refund the amount after deducting 10% thereof towards processing charges. He further submits that despite such notification, the petitioner Institution did not take any steps to come forward and take the refund. As such, the claim of the petitioner for interest does not arise.

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶33

Learned counsel for the fourth respondent University submits that since the petitioner Institution is now affiliated to the fourth respondent University, communications at AnnexuresH and J were issued, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount as the first respondent University had declined to transfer the amount deposited by the petitioner to the account of the respondent.

¶34

Heard and perused the records.

¶35

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner herein had deposited Rs.50,000/- on 13.2.1986, Rs.1,00,000/- on 3.3.1986, Rs.1,00,000/- on 7.9.2010 as stated in paragraph No.3 of the writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the first respondent University further submits that as indicated in the notification, the first respondent University was always ready and willing to refund the amount subject to petitioner furnishing the original receipts and till date, the petitioner has not submitted the original receipts, which is one of the requirements as per the instructions issued by the Government to the Universities to refund the amount.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7474 WP No. 104794 of 2016

¶38

Learned counsel for the first respondent University further submits that the first respondent University has expressed its willingness to refund entire amount, even in the statement of objections and it will abide by the same. The submission is taken on record.

¶39

On query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Institution will furnish the original receipts to the first respondent University and seeks refund of the amount. The submission is taken on record.

¶40

In view the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, request of the petitioner for payment of interest is declined.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The first respondent University is directed to refund Rs.2,50,000/- subject to the petitioner furnishing original receipts for having deposited the said amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

VB/CT-ASC

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Chousan Collage of Education v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chousan Collage of Education v. the Registrar

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

Annaji S/O Laxman Rao Mulagund Aliyas Mulagund Vs Palakshayya S/O Shivamurtiswamy Ramateerthamath Aliyas Kulkarni Since Dead Neelambika Aliyas

The Management of Grasim Industries Limited Vs the Labour Officer Belagavi and

Sri. Ck Srinivas S/O C K Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Basavaraj S/O Shivappa Shedad Vs Y. Devaraj

Dr Ravi Talwar S/O Yenkanna Talwar Vs National Medical Commission

C.G. Math Vs the Principal Secretary to