Dr Ramnath M Vs the State of Karnataka

DR MERLYN MADHUMITHA L AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O FRANCIS LAWRENCE NO.302, KEERTHI ENCLAVE APTS 1^ST CROSS ROAD VINAYAKA NAGAR B BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA VIMANAPURA BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 017.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

DR SHILPA REBECCA F AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O FRANCIS XAVIER M 'EL-SHADAI' ADARSHANAGARA A BLOCK LINGANAPURA MAIN ROAD KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA-571 440.

¶12

DR DEEPIKA P AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS D/O LATE MR. PALANI NO. 1277 AMBEDKAR NAGAR

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

2^ND MAIN , 2^ND CROSS C BLOCK DJ HALLI AC POST BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 045.

¶16

DR SWATHI SIVASUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O SIVASUBRAMANIAN S NO. 199/1A, KAMALA SIVAM HOUSE 5^TH MAIN, MALLESHPALAYA NEW THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 075.

¶17

DR JANANI PS AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O PALANI D NO. 161 1^ST CROSS MARIYAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 021.

¶18

DR S.YALGAVI SHREE AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O R.SRIRANGANATHAN NO.5 YATEHIKA, 1^ST CROSS 10^TH MAIN, VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT HOYSALA NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 016.

¶19

DR NANDINI S, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O SHANKAR G NO. 1431 5^TH CROSS GEETHA ROAD, ROBERTSONPET KGF-563 122

¶20

DR NITHYA PADMAJA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O MAHESWARAN SRINIVASAGAM NO. 1J04, KRISTAL JASPER KASAVANAHALLI, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 035.

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

DR N. JAHNAVI

¶24

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O N SURENDRA NO.37 ANANTHA NILAYA FIRST FLOOR, NEAR FAMILY BIG MART J S LAYOUT, ATTIBELE BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-562 107.

¶25

DR ROHAN RAJ G AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O GOVINDRAJ KK NO.367, JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD KARIAPPA EXTENSION NEAR BALAMURI TEMPLE KUSHALNAGAR TALUK KODAGU.

¶26

DR ANAGHA S AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O LATE SHRIRAM NO. 374 10^TH CROSS 6^TH MAIN, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 076

¶27

DR.NITHIYASREE S AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O P SIVARAMAKRISHNAN NO.H1, EVEREST APARTMENTS 8^TH MAIN, BETWEEN 9^TH AND 11^TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 003.

¶28

DR NANDITHA S AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O SHANKAR NO. 143, 5^TH CROSS GEETHA ROAD ROBERTSONPET KGF, KARNATAKA-563 122.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

DR ARPITHA ARUN

¶32

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O V ARUNKUMAR NO. 1048, 2^ND FLOOR 5^TH BLOCK, 18^TH C MAIN RAJAJINAGAR

¶33

BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 500 010

¶34

DR CHARULATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O SIVABALAN K NO. G07, RUCHIRA AARNA HOMES VINAYAKANAGAR WHITEFIELD BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560 066

¶35

DR PARIKSHITH NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O NAGARAJ MFB NO. 198 HAL CENTRAL TOWNSHIP NEAR BOREWELL STOP MARATHAHALLI COLONY POST BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 037

¶36

DR MONISHA R AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RAJAN BABU K., NO. 19, 17 E MAIN, 72^ND CROSS 5^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 010.

¶37

…PETITIONERS

¶38

(BY SRI. S. SATHYARTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIKASA SOUDHA

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶44

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 009.

¶45

KARNATAKA EDUCATION AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 012 REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

¶46

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 041 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶47

RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL NO.202, KAMBIPURA VILLAGE COLLEGE CAMPUS, MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 074 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶48

CHAIRMAN RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL NO.202 KAMBIPURA VILLAGE COLLEGE CAMPUS MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU- 560 074

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SMT.FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE SERVED TO R-5 & R-6 AND UNREPRESENRTED)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

REFUND THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONERS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF FEE PRESCRIBED AND STIPULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE KEA IN ANNEXURE-C FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 ALONG WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM.

¶56

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶58

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶59

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶60

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶61

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5^th respondent College to refund the amounts collected from the petitioners in excess of the amount of fee prescribed and stipulated by the Government and the KEA in Annexure-C for the year 2017-2018 along with 12% interest per annum, and.

¶62

Costs of this petition and such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶63

We have heard the learned counsel for writ petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned standing counsels appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. Though notice was duly served on respondents No.5 and 6, there is no appearance for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶67

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the writ petitioners were admitted to respondent No.5College for MBBS Course for the academic year 2018-19 and they have completed the course as well. It is submitted that the College had demanded excess fees above what is fixed in respect of the MBBS Course. The 2017 batch students had raised a complaint before the Admission Overseeing Committee ('AOC' for short) regarding illegal demand and collection of excess fees. The AOC had passed a detailed order on 31.10.2018 directing the College not to collect excess fees and refund the excess fees already collected from each of the students. The Government had also passed an order directing the University to implement the recommendations of AOC. However, it is submitted that the said order was not implemented as the 5^th respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4244/2019, challenging the order of AOC. The

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

said writ petition was dismissed on 15.03.2022. Some of the students of the 2018 batch had also approached this Court in W.P. No.52425/2019 and connected cases and by the order dated 28.09.2022, the 5^th respondent was directed to refund the fees paid in excess to the students with 6% interest.

¶71

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contends that the writ petitioners, who are also identically situated as the writ petitioners in WP No.52425/2019 are also entitled for refund of fees with interest as directed in the said writ petition.

¶72

Learned counsel would place reliance on the

¶73

following decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contention;

¶74

Mafatalal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India, in C.A. 3255 of 1984;

¶75

Mahabir Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1990 SC 313 ; and

¶76

Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ram Gopal, in Crl.A.No.204 of 2020.

¶77

The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and the learned standing counsels appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 would submit that the

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

earlier orders of this Court have been given effect to and that the petitioners appear to be identically situated persons. However, it is contended that the writ petitioners had not come before this Court along with identically situated persons and that there is inordinate delay in filing this writ petition.

¶82

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the issue of collection of excess fees by respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of 2018-19 batch MBBS students stands covered by orders of the AOC as well as the judgments of this Court, which are relied on by learned counsel for the writ petitioners.

¶83

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners are identically situated as the writ petitioners in WP No.52425/2019. The finding of this Court in the two writ petitions i.e., WP No.4244/2019 and WP No.52425/2019 is specifically that the 5^th respondent could have charged only the fees which were fixed in terms of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, from the students. The writ petitioners were also students of 2018-19 batch, who were

¶84

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18882-DB WP No. 2095 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

similarly situated as the petitioners in the earlier writ petition. The findings of this Court would be applicable to all students and the 6^th respondent ought to have refunded the amounts to all such students. We are of the opinion that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as has been granted to the petitioners in the said writ petitions.

¶87

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is

¶88

allowed .

¶89

Respondents No.5 and 6 are directed to refund the excess fees collected from the writ petitioners for the academic years 2018-19 to 2022-23 in excess of the fees prescribed by the State Government and the KEA with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of collection till the date of refund.

¶90

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶91

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶92

PN

¶93

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Dr Ramnath M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Ramnath M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Vinay Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Gopal Vs Kumari Prema B S

Smt Komalakshi Vs Smt M Premalatha

M/S San Electro Controls Vs M/S Sahyadri Electro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Fusion Industries Ltd., Vs M./S Chakrapani Vypar Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Jayaram B S Vs Nil