Allowed

Rohin.T v. Kmct Law College

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019WP(C)/14260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that detaining student certificates to secure liquidated damages is unconstitutional. It directed the college to release the petitioner's documents within a week, leaving the remedy for fee recovery open via civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to release all certificates to the petitioner within a week of receipt of this judgment, failing which action will be taken by the 4th respondent.

Rohin.T Vs Kmct Law College — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ROHIN.T S/O.KUNHAMMED, HIRA, NCC ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST.-676303.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 KMCT LAW COLLEGE, MAMPARA, KUTTIPURAM, PAZHOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM-620671, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶12

2 DR.K.MOIDU, CHIRMAN, KMCT LW COLLEGE, MAMPARA, KUTTIPURAM, PAZHOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM-620671.

¶13

3 DR.NAVAS.K.M., CEO AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KMCT LAW COLLEGE, MAMPARA, KUTTIPURAM, PAZHOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM-620671.

¶14

4 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O., THENHIPPALAM, PIN-673635.

¶15

BY ADVS. R1 SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 2

¶18

C.R

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶21

i) To issue a writ of mandamus for any other appropriate writ order or direction. Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return the original SSLC certificate and the Higher Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner and also issue to the petitioner conduct certificate and transfer certificate forthwith and within a stipulated time period as may be stipulated by this Honourable Court;

¶22

ii) Grant to the petitioner such other for further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

Petitioner joined B.B.A.LL.B course in the

¶24

1^st respondent college in the year 2018-19 and has

¶25

remitted the admission fee and other tuition fee for

¶26

the 1^st semester as demanded by the 1^st respondent. However, later petitioner faced with some mental disorders and was under treatment in a hospital at Calicut. After the inpatient treatment, treatment continues even now as an outpatient and the doctor has advised that he should not continue the course,

¶27

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 3

¶28

since the petitioner may not be able to bear the

¶29

tension and stress, which may even upset his mental balance. However, the doctor had advised him to join any other higher studies with light curricula so as to make himself engaged. Therefore the petitioner requested the 1^st respondent to return the original SSLC certificate, Higher Secondary certificate submitted at the time of admission, and also the conduct certificate and transfer certificate so as to enable him to pursue his higher studies. Having refused to do so, petitioner's father has caused to issue a lawyer notice, to which it was replied that petitioner should pay the entire fees and continue his studies. However it is not stated thereunder whether the certificates will be issued as is sought

¶30

for by the petitioner. It is thus seeking the directions specified above, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by

¶32

the 1^st respondent refuting all the allegations raised by the petitioner and also contending that

¶33

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 4

¶34

the 1^st respondent is at liberty to detain the

¶35

certificate till the petitioner makes refund or adjustment of fees in accordance with the provisions contained under Ext. R1(b) prospectus for admission to Law degree course for the year 2018-19. Therefore

¶36

the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the 1^st respondent is that, since the petitioner has undertaken the course taking note of the stipulations contained under Ext.R1(b), petitioner

¶37

is liable to comply with whatever situations contained in Ext.R1(b), and therefore there is no manner of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the 1^st respondent in not releasing the certificate to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, the writ petition against the 1^st respondent is not maintainable under law, not being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner Sri. P.Chandrasekhar and learned senior counsel Sri. George Poonthottam assisted by Adv.

¶40

Nisha George appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and

¶41

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 5

¶42

perused the pleadings and documents on record. It is

¶43

true, as per Clause 9 of Ext.R1(b), stipulations are contained in the following manner.

¶44

“ No request to refund of fees received will be entertained after the commencement of classes. If any candidate discontinues the course or leaves the institution after closing date of admission he/she is liable to pay the fees for the entire duration of the course. In all such cases Transfer Certificate and other certificates will be issued only after payment of liquidated damages”.

¶45

The point is raised by learned senior

¶46

counsel relying upon the said provisions. However the question with respect to the release of the certificate viz-a-viz the liquidated damages was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.C No.1275 of 2017 and has rendered a judgment dated 20.02.2017 holding that the detention of certificates and other documents is a clear violation of fundamental rights disabling the students to undergo the course of their choice in any other institution. I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by learned single Judge in the aforesaid judgment. In my

¶47

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 6

¶48

considered view, the certificates are submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent during the admission process, and the same is retained by the 1^st respondent or the principal as a trustee of the student, and the said documents cannot be detained as a coercive method to secure any liquidated damages, as is stated in the prospectus. So much so, such documents cannot be treated as any security, guarantee, charge or lien enabling respondents 1 to 3 to retain them overlooking the request made. Moreover, respondents have got equally efficacious remedy to seek recovery of any amount due resorting to Civil remedy. In that view of the matter, the action on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 can only be viewed antithesis to rule of law.

¶49

Appreciating the circumstances so, Clause 9 quoted above, so far as enabling the 1^st respondent to detain the documents as a coercive method to recover the liquidated damages is unconstitutional being

¶50

violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the

¶51

Constitution of the India, interfering with the

¶52

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 7

¶53

fundamental rights of the student to pursue his studies in accordance with his wishes, in order to practice any profession, or as to carry on any occupation, trade or business, and life and personal liberty.

¶54

The situations discussed above also make it

¶55

clear that, the challenge made against the deliberate action of respondents 1 to 3, being

¶56

interference with rights conferred by part III of the Constitution, petitioner is entitled as of right to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart respondents 1 to 3 are discharging public duty by rendering education to the needy on the basis of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and therefore comes within the realm of “any person” or “authority” prescribed thereunder. Therefore there is no sustenance for the argument that, writ petition against respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable under law. In that view of the

¶57

matter looking from any angle the action of

¶58

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 8

¶59

respondents are arbitrary and illegal liable to be interfered exercising the power of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶60

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed

¶61

and there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to release/issue all the certificates to the petitioner as sought for at the earliest possible and at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which appropriate action shall be taken by the 4^th respondent in accordance with law. But, I leave open the remedy of respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the petitioner for recovering any liquidated damages in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No.14260 of 2019 9

¶67

APPENDIX

¶68

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 1.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMERY DATED 2.1.2019 ISSUED BY IQRAA CENTRE FOR PSYCHIATRIC CARE, ELANJIPPALAM, CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 2.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.5.2019 ISSUED BY DR.P.N.SURESH KUMAR, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, IQRAA CENTER FOR PSYCHIATRIC CARE AND RESEARCH CENTER, CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 26.3.2019 ISSUED BY K.P.SUDHEER ADVOCATE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 16.5.2019 SEND BY ANAND KUMAR V.K ADVOCATE TO K.P.SUDHEER ADVOCATE.

¶70

RESPONDENT'S/S E	XHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM ALONG WITH DECLARATIONS AND UNDERTAKINGS
	SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT R1B	TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR
	2018-19 AS SEEN PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE
	OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Rohin.T v. Kmct Law College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohin.T v. Kmct Law College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Joseph Vs Government of Kerala

Sivaprasad, Vs Bennychen.P.Thomas

Tetra Queens Distilleries and Braveries Private Limited Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages Corporation

Jayaprakashan P. Vs the Tahsildar

Philipose K a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Balan.K Vs Balamurali I a S