Allowed

Atam Parkash Khatter and Ors. v. Commissioner & Secretary and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2010CWP/13308/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought refund of admission fees paid to an engineering college after securing admission at a different institution involving a better reputation. The High Court held that educational institutions cannot act like commercial establishments for profit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent college to refund a sum of Rs. 61,000 within two weeks, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit to the date of payment.

Atam Parkash Khatter and Ors. Vs Commissioner… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 13308 of 2009

¶2

¶3

Sh. Atam Parkash Khatter Vs. Commissioner & Secretary & another to Govt. of Haryana & others

¶4

Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶6

¶7

Petitioner No.2 is daughter of petitioner No.1, was aspirant for admission in the Engineering College. She, accordingly, took admission in respondent No.3-college on 20.8.2008. She deposited a sum of Rs.61,000/- with the institution. Subsequently, she got admission in Dhoon Valley Institute of Technology & Engineering College, Karnal on 25.8.2008. She had to deposit a sum of Rs.65000/- with the said institution and evidence in this regard has been placed on record of this writ petition. The petitioner, accordingly, approached the respondent-college with a prayer to refund her fee as she would not have been able to pursue or continue her studies in the institution. Petitioner No.1 also approached the Director Technical Education, Haryana for refund of the admission fee. Prayer was made to return the original documents and refund of the admission fee. Since nothing was done, the petitioners served a legal notice to the respondents through their counsel. Even a show cause notice was issued to institution by respondent no.2 as to why action be not taken against the institution for defying the Government Instructions regarding refund of fee and original documents. Respondent No.3-college still

¶8

Civil Writ Petition No. 13308 of 2009

¶9

-2-

¶10

did not budge and refused to refund the fee. The documents, however, were returned. The petitioners, as such, were forced to file the present writ petition.

¶11

Notice of motion was issued. Respondent No.3 has filed reply. In the reply, reliance is placed on the provision of the prospectus, which provides that fees once made are neither refundable nor transferable in any case.

¶12

Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has stressed on this aspect of the provision of the prospectus and the fact that there is no justification on the part of the petitioners to seek refund of the fee specially when the seat in the college, has remained unfilled.

¶13

It is required to be seen if the action of the respondentcollege is justified in not refunding fee. It can be understood that a student, who is aspirant of doing a professional degree like Engineering or Medical, would be keen to secure and study at such institution, which has a better repute. Thus, no fault can be found in the action of petitioner No.2, is seeking admission in another institution at Karnal and then, praying for refund of the fee as she did not intend to pursue her study with respondent No.3-institution.

¶14

Counsel representing respondent No.3-college was given an option to voluntarily refund the fee, which it had retained for two years. However, he came back to the Court to say that he is unable to contact his client. May be it is a ploy to tide over the issue for a time being. Counsel then prayed for adjournment to argue the case, which is declined. The case was passed over on request and has

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No. 13308 of 2009

¶16

-3-

¶17

been heard thereafter.

¶18

Respondent No.3 would have no justification to retain the fee, when the student has not come to study. Education institutions cannot be permitted to behave like a business establishment who work with profit motive. Respondent No.3 is an Education institution and cannot act like commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the respondent-institution in retaining the substantial fee paid by a student, who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said institution? Rs.61000/- is not a small amount and the respondent-institution would not become poor in case it is to refund this fee.

¶19

Writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is so ordered. Direction is issued to respondent No.3-college to refund a sum of Rs.61000/- within a period of two weeks from today. This shall be with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it was deposited to the date of the payment.

¶20

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶21

July 21, 2010 monika

Atam Parkash Khatter and Ors. v. Commissioner & Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atam Parkash Khatter and Ors. v. Commissioner & Secretary and Others

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

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Haryana

Anju Bala & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kamal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Union of India and Anr. Vs Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.

Naseeb Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tek Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.