Dismissed

The Principal v. G. Ravindranath

Kerala HC1 Jul 2020WP(C)/29861/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a medical college challenging an order of the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) determining the fee refund for a cancelled student. The High Court upheld the ASC's order, finding bank statements reliable evidence of capitation fees paid.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The college was directed to refund Rs.27,39,000/- to the respondent within four weeks.

The Principal Vs G. Ravindranath — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.29861 OF 2019(G)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, ANJARAKANDY.P.O,MAMBA, KANNUR-670612

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 G. RAVINDRANATH S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA, CRA-189 PONGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695011

¶13

2 THE ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA, T.C.15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P.APAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.MEGHA R1 BY ADV. SMT.KARTHIKA M.R. R2 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-062020, THE COURT ON 01-07-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of July 2020

¶20

Gopinath, J.

¶21

The admissions granted by the Kannur Medical College to the MBBS Course, in that college, in the year 2016-17, were found to be illegal and contrary to law by the Admission Supervisory Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the 'ASC') constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 Act, [Act 19 of 2006] (now repealed), through an order dated 14.11.2016. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with this order and it became final. As a consequence, the admissions granted to nearly 150 students had to be cancelled. Though the State promulgated an ordinance to regularize the admission, the said ordinance was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

¶22

On 25.07.2018 there was a recommendation by the ASC to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, to withdraw the affiliation/recognition of Kannur Medical College for the academic year 2018-2019. These proceedings were found to be in order by a Division Bench of this Court through a judgment dated 1.8.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 25895 of 2018. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court of India through S.L.P (C) No.

¶23

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶24

-3-

¶25

23225 of 2018 and connected cases. A consent order was passed on 29.08.2018 in S.L.P (C) No. 23225 of 2018 and connected cases, which order is on record in this case. We are concerned here only with the 1^st direction that forms part of the consent order dated 29.08.2018 which, provides that the college shall return an amount equivalent to the double of the amount collected from the students together with refund of the fee deposited by each one of the 150 students, with the college, by 04-092018. There was a further direction that the Admission Supervisory Committee shall ascertain and report as to whether the amounts in question have been refunded, as directed. On 1.9.2018, the Admission Supervisory Committee filed its report which inter alia suggested that the amounts directed to be paid/refunded to each of the students have not been paid/refunded in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Therefore a further direction was issued by the Supreme Court on 4.10.2018 through which it was directed that the Admission Supervisory Committee shall determine the amount payable to each one of the students. The ASC has passed individual orders in respect of claims raised before it by the students/ guardians. In this writ petition we are concerned with an order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee, in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court , determining the amount payable by the petitioner college on account of the fees and other amounts collected from one Lalitha R. Nath.

¶26

-4-

¶27

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶28

The question of maintainability of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been questioned at the admission stage, a Division Bench of this Court, to which one amongst us (A.M.Shaffique.J.) was a party, came to the conclusion through an order dated 20.2.2020, that the Writ Petition was maintainable. Therefore we do not propose to go into that issue again.

¶29

Before we proceed to determine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, we must notice the observation of the Supreme Court in the order dated 4.10.2018 that the quantum of amount collected by the College from each student and what amount has been refunded is a seriously disputed fact and also notice the following direction issued to the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) by the Supreme Court.

¶30

“ The ASC to consider the material which may be placed on record by the respective parties and take a decision in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence adduced in each of the case with respect to each of the students . (emphasis is ours)

¶31

Thus it is clear that the direction given to the ASC was to individually

¶32

determine the case of each student, in accordance with law, having due regard to the material which may be placed on record and the evidence adduced by the parties. Since the entire exercise undertaken by the ASC was in terms of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, it goes without saying that the ASC was bound to conclude its determination strictly in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court.

¶33

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶34

-5-

¶35

We have heard Sri. Abdul Raoof, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Mary Benjamin, Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent (the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) and Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer appearing for the 1^st respondent, the complainant before the 2^nd respondent Committee. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ASC had determined the issue based on mere surmises and conjectures and that there was no reliable material before the committee to hold that the amount in question was payable to the complainant/student. He states that the college has not received any amount other than the admitted amount of Rs.11.65 lakhs and therefore no further liability could be fastened on the college since an amount of Rs.23.30 lakhs being double the amount of Rs.11.65 lakhs has already been refunded. The Learned Counsel appearing for the ASC would point out that the ASC which was a committee under Act 19 of 2006 has not been impleaded in this writ petition and this, according to her, is a fatal defect. She states that the 2^nd respondent herein is the body constituted under the enactment which repealed and replaced Act 19 of 2006, namely Act 15 of 2017. On merits she would contend that the College had indulged in severe malpractices resulting in the orders against them which have already been noticed above. She would urge that we must not interfere with the orders which have been issued by the ASC after careful scrutiny of all material placed before it. The learned counsel for the

¶36

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶37

-6-

¶38

student/complainant would support the findings in the order and urge that we should not interfere with the order.

¶39

We must first consider the question as to whether the nonimpleadment of the ASC should be a ground to refuse consideration of the matter on its merits. We are of the considered opinion that the ASC is not a necessary party to these proceedings since the committee is not required to justify its findings before this Court in any manner. We are fortified in taking such a view in the light of the law laid down by a 3 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in M.S Kazi v. Muslim Education Society & ors - (2016) IX SCC 263 .

¶40

The ASC has, on 06-08-2019 determined the amount payable to student/complainant to be a sum of Rs.27,39,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.23,30,000/- already paid by the college. We have gone through the order dated 06-08-2019 which is impugned before us and perused the material produced before the ASC in order to determine whether the order passed by the ASC was sustainable and in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

¶41

The ASC has considered the following material/documents to reach its conclusion regarding the amount payable by the college to the student / complainant.

¶42

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶43

-7-

¶44

Sl. No.	Particulars	Document number referred to in the order of the ASC
1	Proof affidavit filed by Sri. G. Revindranath, father of the student.	Produced as Ext.P9 in this writpetition
2	Statement of account of Sri. G. Revindranath issued byKerala Gramin Bank.	A1
3	Statement of account of Sri. G. Revindranath issued byFederal Bank, Pongummodu branch.	A2
4	Statement of account of Sri. G. Revindranath and his wife Smt. L. Ravikala issued by State Bank of India, Pongummodu Branch.	A3
	Statement of account of Smt. L. Ravikala
5	issued by Kerala Gramin Bank, Sreekaryam, Branch.	A4

¶45

As already noticed, the ASC passed Ext.P10 order directing the college to refund an amount of Rs.27,39,000/- to the student. This

¶46

figure was arrived at by accepting the case father of the student that he had paid a total sum of Rs.31.17 lakhs to the college authorities. After deducting a sum of Rs.11,65,000/- which was the amount collected as fee (including hostel fee), the Committee held that the amount collected over and above the fee was Rs.19,52,000/-. In terms of Ext.P1 order of the Supreme Court the college was required to refund the fees and double the amount collected over and above the fees. Therefore the Committee determined the amount to be refunded in the following manner.

¶47

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶48

-8-

¶49

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount
1	Fee includinghostel fee	Rs.11,65,000/-
2	Twice the amount collected over and above the fee(Rs.19,52,000/- x 2)	Rs.39,04,000/-
3	Amount alreadyrefunded	Rs.23,30,000/-
4	Balancepayable(1 + 2)- 3	Rs.27,39,000/-

¶50

According to the college, they have received only Rs.10 lakhs towards fee and Rs.1,65,000/- towards hostel fee. In order to prove the source of Rs.31.17 lakhs, the proof affidavit referred to above had been filed by the father of the student inter alia stating the source of funds for raising the total amount of Rs.31.17 lakhs. The Committee accepted the version with reference to Exts. A1 to A4.

¶51

We have perused the documents referred to as Exts.A1 to A4 and the proof affidavit filed by the father of the student, in order to determine whether there was acceptable proof regarding the source of funds to have paid a sum of Rs.31,17,000/- to the college. As already noticed the Supreme Court had clearly indicated in its order dated 04-10-2018 that the determination of the amount payable shall be on the basis of the evidence and the materials placed before the Committee. Exhibit A1 statement of accounts of the father of the student shows that an amount of Rs.5,01,000/- was withdrawn on 01-09-2016 and another amount of Rs.3,02,000/- was withdrawn on 08-09-2016. Ext.A2 statement of account of the father of the student shows that he had withdrawn a sum

¶52

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶53

-9-

¶54

of Rs.10 lakhs on 08-09-2016. Ext.A3 statement of account in respect of the joint account of the parents of the student shows that there was a cash withdrawal of Rs.4 lakhs on 07-04-2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that we should discount this withdrawal and it should not be taken as a source for any payment alleged to have been made to the college for the reason that there is absolutely no explanation as to why this amount was withdrawn as early as on 07-04-2016 on which date the admission process had not even started. However, we see no reason to reject the claim of the father of the student that this amount was also withdrawn for payment to the college since no question has been put to the father of the student during cross-examination as to the necessity for making a withdrawal as early as on 07-04-2016. In other words there is nothing to discredit the version of the father of the student that the amount withdrawn on 07-04-2016 was also utilized to make payment to the college. Ext.A4 shows that there was a cash withdrawal from the account of Smt. Ravikala, mother of the student on 01-09-2016 (Rs.4.99 lakhs) and another withdrawal of Rs.5.98 lakhs from the same account on 08-09-2016. There is a clear source for the amount of Rs.31.17 lakhs stated to have been paid to the college. In cases where amounts are received over and above the fee, it is unlikely that any other evidence other than source can be relied upon to determine whether the allegation of payment is true. In the facts of the present case we see no reason to reject the case of Sri. Revindranath

¶55

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶56

-10-

¶57

regarding the source of his funds for making the payment to the college.

¶58

Thus this writ petition will stand dismissed. The college shall refund an amount of Rs.27,39,000/- to the 1^st respondent without any further delay and at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which further steps in accordance with law shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

W.P. (C) No.29861/2019

¶67

-11-

¶68

APPENDIX

¶69

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶70

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY KMC TO ASC ON 13.08.2018
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL 9C0NO.23225/2018 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, DATED 29.8.2018
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MA NO.2354/18 IN SLP(C0NO.23225/2018 DATED 4.10.2018
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.908/2019 IN SLP NO.23225/18 DATED 27.09.2019
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2.9.18
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 19.01.2018
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ASC(P)91/18/HO/TVPM/MBBS/KMC DATED 6.8.2019
RESPOND	ENT'S/S	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	R1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MIS.APPLN NO-2354/2018 IN S.L.P. NO-23225/2018
EXHIBIT	R1 B	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P. NO-23225/2018
EXHIBIT	R1 C	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT,TO THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT,BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	R1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING A LIST OF THE PAYMENT, MADE TO THE COLLEGE, THE DATE OF PAYMENT, REFUNDABLE AMOUNT ASSESSED BY THE
		COMMITTEE, AMOUNT REFUNDED BY THE COLLEGE ETC.

The Principal v. G. Ravindranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal v. G. Ravindranath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal, Kannur Medical College Vs a.R.Shajahan

The Principal Vs Tomy Mathew

The Principal Vs Sabna P.

State of Kerala Vs Vinod Kumar C.R.

Raveendran Vs the Employees State Insurance

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Baiju Chandran