Dismissed

The Principal v. 1. Dr.Jyothsna

Kerala HC14 Nov 2022WP(C)/2592/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a medical college Principal challenging an order of the Admission Supervisory Committee. The Committee directed the college to pay double the fees to a student 's father, notwithstanding a 2017 settlement where the student received substantial fees. The court held that the Supreme Court's ruling later clarified that students were entitled to double

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the AFRC directing payment of double fees was upheld.

The Principal Vs 1. Dr.Jyothsna — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2592 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THE PRINCIPAL, KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE,
ANJARAKANDY, P.O., KANNUR , PIN – 670612

¶7

BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1DR.JYOTHSNA , AGED 49 YEARS
W/O KALYAN KRISHNAN, VAZHAPULLI HOUSE,
KANIMANGALAM P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 680027

¶10

22. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA,
T.C. 15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS,
M.P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶11

BY ADVS.
KARTHIKA S.
MARY BENJEMIN
K.MEERA(K/587/1991)
PREETHY KARUNAKARAN(P-214)
ANJANA M VADHYAR(K/000456/2018)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 2592/22

JUDGMENT

There is hardly any doubt that the issues projected by the

¶17

petitioner in this case have been considered and disposed of by

¶18

this Court in a series of judgments, including WP(C)No.18471/2022 and connected matters.

¶19

2 . However, Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath – learned counsel

¶20

for the petitioner, still argued that the aforesaid judgment would not apply to the facts of this case because this is one in which the student had been paid the entire, if not, substantial, portion

¶21

of the fee collected. He asserted that the matter was settled between the parties in the year 2017 and that Ext.P6 undertaking

¶22

was obtained from the 1 st respondent – mother of the student, showing full and final settlement. He argued that, therefore, the Admission Supervisory and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC for short) - constituted under the provisions of Act 15 of 2017, could

¶23

not have issued Ext.P15 order thereafter.

¶24

3 . I must say that the afore submissions of Sri.Abdul

¶25

WPC 2592/22

¶26

¶27

Raoof can never be countenanced by this Court because the Principal of the College had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)No.26995/2019, when the AFRC issued him a notice to re-open the matter and he asserted that this could not have been done, after the entire fees had been paid. The Honourable Supreme Court, however, did not find favour with this and Ext.P3 judgment was delivered, setting aside the judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.26995/2019, whereby, the afore submissions of the petitioner had been found in his favour; with a consequential direction to the AFRC to reconsider the claim of the 1 st respondent in terms of law and adverting to its orders dated 29.08.2018, whereby every student was directed to be paid double the fees collected. Obviously, therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court had been told of Ext.P6 affidavit, as also the fact that the 1 st respondent had been paid nearly Rs.45 lakhs; but in spite of this, the Supreme Court thought it fit to set aside the judgment of this Court and to remit the matter to AFRC for further consideration.

¶28

4 . Interestingly, the AFRC has also found that the

¶29

¶30

WPC 2592/22

¶31

petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.45 lakhs to the 1 st

¶32

respondent, but then went on to issue Ext.P15 order, based on the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 29.08.2018, as also a subsequent one dated 04.10.2018, thus ordering that an amount of Rs.36,69,000/- be additionally paid by the petitioner to the 1 st respondent within a period of one month from its date.

¶33

5 . The real question is, therefore, whether merely

¶34

because the College had paid Rs.45 lakhs to the 1 st respondent or to her daughter in the year 2017, the benefit which accrued to them through the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 29.08.2018 and 04.10.2018 would be lost. The argument of Sri.Abdul Raoof is that the 1 st respondent cannot claim benefits under the said judgments and he edifices his contention on the

¶35

fact that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is subsequent to the settlement.

¶36

6 . I am afraid that one can never find favour with the

¶37

afore argument of the petitioner because, as I have already said

¶38

above, the Honourable Supreme Court was told about the

¶39

WPC 2592/22

¶40

¶41

settlement, as also Ext.P6 undertaking, but it still went on to issue Ext.P3 judgment, directing the AFRC to consider the claim

¶42

of the 1 st respondent and her daughter, on the hypostasis of the directions therein. This was, thereafter, supplemented by the further judgment dated 04.10.2018, which made it clear that ‘the College shall return the double of the amount than the fees deposited by each one of 150 students with college by 4 th September 2018’ (sic).

¶43

7 . Therefore, as long as the petitioner does not have a case that the daughter of the 1 st respondent is not one among the

¶44

150 students mentioned in the afore judgment, I fail to understand how they impel a contention that she is not entitled

¶45

to the benefits thereunder, merely because there was a settlement in the year 2017.

¶46

8 . To paraphrase, the Honourable Supreme Court has noticed the settlement, but still made it clear, through Ext.P3, that the students will get the benefits, notwithstanding such; and

¶47

this is what exactly the AFRC has also said in its impugned orders.

¶48

WPC 2592/22

¶49

¶50

9 . Smt.Karthika S. - learned counsel appearing for the 1 st

¶51

respondent, in fact, submitted that the attempt of the petitioner

¶52

is to obfuscate the true facts, relying upon an undertaking that

¶53

was obtained from her client through duress. She contended that, notwithstanding the said ‘undertaking’, her client’s daughter is entitled to be paid double the amount of fees paid, going by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, namely Ext.P3, and the subsequent one dated 04.10.2018; and therefore, that even when her client had admitted receipt of Rs.45 lakhs, her daughter would be still entitled to the figure now found by the AFRC, being double the actual fees paid. She pointed out that the AFRC has found that her client had paid nearly Rs.48 lakhs

¶54

as fees and hence, their order to pay back the balance amount are without any error.

¶55

10. I concur with the afore submissions of Smt.S.Karthika and therefore, am left without any doubt that the impugned order of the AFRC is irreproachable and that this judgment should also follow the view taken by this Court in the earlier ones, namely in WP(C)No.18471/2022 and connected matters.

¶56

WPC 2592/22

¶57

¶58

This Writ Petition is resultantly, dismissed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

RR

¶61

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

WPC 2592/22

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2592/2022

¶66

`PETITIONER EXHI` `Exhibit`	`BITS` `4. EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF` `THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP (C) NO.` `23225/2018 DATED 29.08.18`
`Exhibit2`	`5. EXHIBIT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF` `THE SUPREME COURT IN MA NO. 2354/18 IN` `SLP (C) NO. 23225/2018 DATED 4.10.2018`
`Exhibit3`	`6. EXHIBIT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPREME` `COURT JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.` `596/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES` `DATED18.2.2021`
`Exhibit4`	`7. EXHIBIT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT` `DATED 2.9.17 FILED BY THE 1STPETITIONER`
`Exhibit5`	`8. EXHIBIT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `11.9.2017`
`Exhibit6`	`9. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT` `DATED 3.10.2017`
`Exhibit7`	`10. EXHIBIT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE` `PETITION DATED 3.10. 2017 FILED BEFORE` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit8`	`EXHIBIT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `21.12.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit9`	`EXHIBIT.P9 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED` `13.12.2017`
`Exhibit10`	`EXHIBIT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE` `OBJECTION/STATEMENT FILED BY THE` `PETITIONER DATED 28.11.2018`
`Exhibit11`	`EXHIBIT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES` `DATED 7.1.2019`
`Exhibit12`	`EXHIBIT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `22.1.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit13`	`EXHIBIT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE` `DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit14`	`EXHIBIT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF` `AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS, AND DEPOSITION`
`Exhibit15`	`EXHIBIT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.` `ASC (P) 222/17/HO/TVPM/MBBS/KMC DATED` `18.11.2021`
`Exhibit16`	`EXHIBIT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM` `ORDER IN WP(C )NO. 14970/2021 DATED` `4.8.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`

The Principal v. 1. Dr.Jyothsna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal v. 1. Dr.Jyothsna

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

Abdul Salam K., Vs P.v.Saseendran

Adv. Latheefa Vs State of Kerala

Amrutha Devan C. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Febina a.P., Vs the State of Kerala

Ganesh Bhat R Vs State of Kerala

The Principal Vs 1. Aleena Davis