IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 29635 of 2004(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.SHAJILA, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED ARIF P., FAIZAL MANZIL, HOUSING COLONY ROAD, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-679 322. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPPALAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPPALAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, M.C.T. TRAINING COLLEGE, MALAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, M.C.T.TRAINING COLLEGE, MALAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1,R2 SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN FOR R3 & 4 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29635/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE FEES RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.6.2004. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECIEPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT 9.7.2004. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT 9.7.2004. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAIL COMPLAINT BILL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 14.7.04. EXTS.OF R3 AND R4 EXT.R1: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.GA1/A2/1825/2004 DT 5.5.2004. EXT.R2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 9.7.2004. EXT.R3: TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT FOR UNIVERSITY TEACHER EDUCATION CENTER DATED NIL. EXT.R4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(MS) NO.153/95/H.EDN. DT 27.9.95. EXT.R5: TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.119/2001/H.EDN. DT 26.9.2001. EXT.R6: TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29635 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had joined B.Ed College of respondents 3 and 4 in the year 2004. The admission was secured in a management seat. Petitioner paid the tuition fee and other dues and commenced studies. The admissions were closed on 30/6/2004. On 7/7/2004, petitioner applied for TC for the reason that she secured admission in a college near to her native place and that too in the merit seat. Respondents 3 and 4 issued the TC, but however did not refund the tuition fee and the special fee collected from the petitioner. It is complaining of the above and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary action against respondents 3 and 4 for the refund of the fee withheld by them that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The stand taken by respondents 3 and 4 is that the admission was secured by the petitioner in a management seat. It is stated that the admission was based on Ext.R6 prospectus which enabled them to collect tuition fee of `18,000/- and special fee of `4,500/-. It is stated that after the admissions were closed WPC No. 29635/04 :2 : on 30/6/2004, petitioner made an application and obtained TC. According to respondents 3 and 4, in such circumstances, the seat vacated by the petitioner had to be kept unfilled and that it was to avoid the consequent loss that they refused to refund the tuition fee and the special fee collected from the petitioner. 3. On behalf of the University also, a statement has been filed where it is stated that when a candidate admitted to a particular course in the self financing scheme discontinues in the middle of a course, TC will be issued only after remitting full fee of the course. It is further stated that if the request for TC is made before the closure of the admission, fee will be refunded. 4. Hence, it is obvious that a candidate discontinuing the course is entitled to refund of the fee only if such discontinuance is before the closure of the admission. In this case, admissions were closed on 30/6/2004 and the petitioner applied for TC only on 7/7/2004. As a result of this, one seat could not be filled up by the management. In such circumstances, to avoid loss being caused, if the management refused to refund the fee and special fee, this Court will not be justified in compelling the management to refund the same. WPC No. 29635/04 :3 : 5. However, this Court would certainly have called upon the management to refund the fee, provided the petitioner was in a position atleast to demonstrate that the seat vacated by her was filled up by admitting some other candidate. In this case, there is total dearth of material in that behalf also. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek the assistance of this Court to refund the fee forfeited by the management. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp