Allowed

Lakshmi Sunil v. the Chairman

Kerala HC9 Sept 2020WP(C)/16126/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, directed a nursing college and its principal to immediately issue a Transfer Certificate and return the petitioner's original documents. The college had refused these requests, demanding additional fees. The Court held such detention illegal while reserving the right to seek fee recovery through appropriate legal remedies. The petition was allowed with

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 3 and 4 to issue a valid Transfer Certificate and return original certificates within one week of the judgment's service.

Lakshmi Sunil Vs the Chairman — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 18TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LAKSHMI SUNIL AGED 19 YEARS D/O.SUNIL KUMAR, STUDENT, 1ST YEAR B.SC.NURSING, AZEEZIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, NEYANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PERATHERIL, COURT JUNCTION, MAVELIKKARA P.O., PIN-690101.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CHAIRMAN,

¶11

BOARD OF ADJUDICATION FOR STUDENT GRIEVANCES,

¶12

THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR-680596.

¶13

2 THE REGISTRAR, THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR-680596.

¶14

3 THE AZEEZIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, NEEYANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4 THE PRINCIPAL, THE AZEEZIA COLLEGE OF NURSING, NEEYANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1-2 BY SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 9th day of September 2020

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶23

seeking directions to be issued to respondents 3 and

¶24

4- which is the College and the Principal of the College where she was earlier pursuing her studies leading to the Degree of B.Sc Nursing to issue to her a Transfer Certificate and also to release all

¶25

her original certificates earlier entrusted with them.

¶26

According to the petitioner, she had joined the course in the 3^rd respondent-College after paying the requisite fee, but that on account of

¶27

certain extenuating circumstances, she was unable to

¶28

complete it; and therefore, that she applied for Transfer Certificate, so as to enable her to join a different College. She says that she made Ext.P1 application for this purpose, but that the College has refused to either issue her Transfer Certificate

¶29

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶30

or to release her original documents, demanding that

¶31

she pay another Rs.1,00,000/- as additional fee. The petitioner, therefore, prays that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to issue her the Transfer Certificate and to release her documents forthwith.

¶32

Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred 'KUHS' for short), submitted that if the allegations of the petitioner are true, then respondents 3 and 4 are in error in denying the

¶33

issuance of the Transfer Certificate and in further detaining her original documents. He submitted specifically that the College cannot detain the

¶34

documents or refuse to issue Transfer Certificate on the ground that additional fees has to be paid.

¶35

Even though notice from this Court has been validly served on respondents 3 and 4, they have chosen neither to be represented through a counsel or to be present in person. I am, therefore,

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶38

constrained to dispose of this writ petition without hearing them.

¶39

The facts, as are discernible from the

¶40

pleadings on record, juxtaposed by the aforesubmissions of the learned counsel for the parties, make it evident that the petitioner has been denied

¶41

a Transfer Certificate and has been refused the release of her original documents because she discontinued her course in the 3^rd respondentCollege and allegedly because they are demanding additional fees. Going by the submissions made on behalf of the KUHS, such a stand by the college is completely untenable and illegal. Obviously, therefore, whatever be the claim of the College against the petitioner in terms of additional fees or such other, they cannot detain her original

¶42

documents nor can they refuse to issue her a valid Transfer Certificate.

¶43

In such scenario, I am certain in my mind

¶44

¶45

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶46

that this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶47

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

¶48

direct respondent 3 and 4 to forthwith issue a

¶49

valid Transfer Certificate to the petitioner and also to return to her original certificates, within a period of one week from the date on which the certified copy of this judgment is produced before them.

¶50

I clarify that I have not considered the

¶51

entitlement of the College to receive any fee or additional amounts from the petitioner and that they

¶52

will be at liberty to invoke their available remedies for such purpose, if they are so entitled in law, without being trammeled by any of my observations herein.

¶53

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No.16126 OF 2020(M)

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 24.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.07.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH EMAIL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.07.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH EMAIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Lakshmi Sunil v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Sunil v. the Chairman

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

Arjuna M., Vs the Director

Vinu Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Ashik K. Moosa, Vs the Director

Nicy George Vs the State of Kerala

K.R.Sunil Dutt Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Shamseer M.F. Vs Kerala Water Authority