Allowed

Reena Bobby v. All India Counsel for the Technical Education

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017WP(C)/22373/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding refusal to release student certificates after discontinuance. Court disposed of the petition directing parties to approach the respondents to either pay dues or execute a bond for fee recovery to obtain certificates.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of, directing petitioner to approach respondents to pay dues or execute a bond to get certificates.

Reena Bobby Vs All India Counsel for the Technical… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/ 11TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 22373 of 2017 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. REENA BOBBY,

¶8

AGED 39 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, IKKARANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,

¶9

ERNAKULAM-683565.

¶10

2. MATHEW SAM KUNNATHU,

¶11

AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.BOBBY MATHEWS, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., PALLIKKARA, IKKARANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683565.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. ALL INDIA COUNSEL FOR THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695017

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR, MAR BASELIOUS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, ARAMANA, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM-686038.

¶16

3. THE PRINCIPAL,

¶17

MAR BASELIOUS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KUTTIKKANAM, IDUKKI-685531.

¶18

R1 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,SC,

¶19

R2,R3 BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER

¶20

SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.V.

¶23

WP(C).No. 22373 of 2017 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1	THE TURE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE CLASS X.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE CLASS XII.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14-06-2017 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(A)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP ISSUED BY THE POST OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01-12-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO MBC/C/DC/2017 DATED 30.6.2017.
R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR SENDING EXT R2(A)
R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD FOR RECEIVING EXT R2(A).
R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO 155/2016/H.EDN DATED 30.6.2016.
	/TRUE COPY/
K.V.	P.S.TO JUDGE

¶26

W.P.(C)No.22373 of 2017

¶27

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved with alleged refusal of the 3^rd respondent to release the certificates of the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly got admission in the 3^rd respondent-Selffinancing College in the academic year 2016-17 for B.Tech. course. After the first semester the petitioner discontinued. The petitioner is said to have sent a notice to the respondent of discontinuance and by this writ petition claims the certificates.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The 3^rd respondent submits that in fact as per Ext.R2 (a) dated 30.6.2017 the 1^st petitioner-the mother of the student was directed to appear before the college for collecting the certificates subject to the scrutiny and the decision of the Fee Regulatory Committee/Admission Supervisory Committee. The specific Clause with respect to the liabilities of a student who discontinues is extracted in the counter affidavit being Clause 18 of G.O.(MS)No.155/2016/H.Edn. dated 30.6.2016. The same is

¶32

W.P.(C)No.22373/2017

¶33

-2-

¶34

extracted herein below:-

¶35

“The Educational Agency can retain the Tuition Fee remitted by the student in the event of a student admitted under the Management quota or Government quota, discontinues his/her studies for any reason at any time after the 15^th day of August 2016, which is the closing date of admission to engineering courses. In case, any student admitted to the College decides to cancel the admission for any reason whatsoever, the Educational Agency shall also be entitled to collect the tuition fee of the entire course, subject to the scrutiny of the Fee Regulatory Committee and the decision of the Fee Regulatory Committee will be binding on the Association/College. The Engineering colleges have no right to retain the documents of any student who discontinue the course after 15.08.2016. The member colleges may take a bond from the student and one of his/her parents undertaking to obey the order that may be passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee/Fee Regulatory Committee/Court of law. All documents shall be released to the applicant student at the time of discontinuance with such undertaking.”

¶36

W.P.(C)No.22373/2017

¶37

-3-

¶38

Hence on discontinuance the colleges cannot retain the certificates and has to release them on the parent paying off the entire course fees as fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee or executing a bond undertaking to pay off the amounts due to the 3^rd respondent College. It has also been clarified that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.3,75,000/- as remaining course fee.

¶39

In such circumstances, the petitioner can approach the

¶40

respondents and either pay off the amounts or execute a bond for the said amount and get release of the certificates. If the petitioner does not pay off the amounts and merely executes a bond then the 3^rd respondent will be entitled to take appropriate proceedings for recovery in accordance with law in which event the risk and consequences will be that of the petitioners.

¶41

The writ petition would stand disposed of.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

Reena Bobby v. All India Counsel for the Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Bobby v. All India Counsel for the Technical Education

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

Preetha S. Vs Somanathan Nair

Smt.Sreelatha Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta District

Sukumaran.M.K Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vattiparambath Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Unicore (India) Limited Vs Kerala Medical Services Corporation Limited

Paulose M.O. Vs Office of the Deputy Thahasildar (Rr), Thrissur