IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30355 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHAVIKA MANGALANANDAN, "AATHIRA", 37/966-A, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM-682020. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 3. DEAN, POST GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 4. CHAIRMAN, PG ADMISSION, NIT, CALICUT. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30355/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE PRIORITY LIST. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.6.09. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.23.6.09. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.23.6.09. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.7.09. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.31.7.09 OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. P7. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS REGARDING ADMISSION. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.8.09. P9. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.8.09 OF R2. P10. COPY OF THE COMMENTS OF R3. P11. COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER OF DTD.31.7.09. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NO.R2A. R2B. COPY OF THE PRIORITY LIST. C. COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD.23.6.09. D. COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30355 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T After completing the B.Tech. Engineering degree and securing score of 543 in the GATE, 2009, the petitioner applied for M.Tech. Course in various IITs and national institutions. Th petitioner first got admission in Trichi. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, she was accommodated at National Institute of Technology, Calicut. She joined the course there on 22.7.2009. Thereafter, she got admission in IIT, Delhi. She went over to Delhi and joined there on 27.7.2009. After joining there, she immediately faxed Ext.P5 letter dated 29.7.2009 to the 3rd respondent stating that she has got admission in IIT, Delhi, and joined there on 27.7.2009 and her admission may be cancelled so that another person can be admitted in that vacancy. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother went to the 2nd respondent for return of the certificates of the petitioner, whereupon the 2nd respondent insisted on the petitioner's mother paying the balance course fee of Rs.52,500/-, which she was forced to pay to get back the certificates of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation seeking refund of the fees paid by the petitioner. That was rejected by Ext.P9 letter. That is under challenge before me. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: w.p.c.30355/09 2 “I. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order, or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P9 and quash the same. II. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to refund an amount of Rs.76407/- with interest. III To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to refund the hostel fees of Rs.9000/- with interest. III.(sic) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to examine the illegal procedure adopted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and to direct them not to illegally collect amount as a pre-condition for return of the original certificates.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner informed the 2nd respondent on 29.7.2009 itself requesting cancellation of her admission, which was prior to the closure of admission and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the fees paid. 3. A counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit have been filed by respondents 2 to 4. They take the contention that as per the provisions of the prospectus, the petitioner is liable to pay the full course fees for getting back the certificates on withdrawal from the programme after closure of the admission. According to them, although they have received the fax message dated 29.7.2009, they could not have validly acted upon the same without any positive authorization in respect of the same. They got positive authorization from the mother of the petitioner only on 31.7.2009 by which time, the admission had already been closed on 30.7.2009. Therefore, going by the admission rules, the petitioner is liable to pay tuition fees for w.p.c.30355/09 3 the entire duration of the course to get back the original certificates from the institution, is their contention. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. A copy of the prospectus has been made available to me for perusal. In the same, in respect of withdrawal from/discontinuation of the programme, it is stated as follows: “Withdrawal from/Discontinuation of programme If a student withdraws from the programme after closure of admission and as the vacant seat so created cannot be filled up by another candidate from the waiting list, no refund of fees collected from the candidate will be made. As per the existing rules in the Institute, such candidates will have to pay the tuition fees for the entire duration of the course to get the original certificates back from the Institute.” Therefore the questions before me are whether the petitioner withdrew from the programme before the closure of admission and whether a vacant seat created could have been filled up by another candidate from the waiting list. Admittedly, the petitioner issued the fax message on 29.7.2009 intimating that she is withdrawing from the programme. But I do not think that respondents 3 and 4 could have validly acted upon that fax message. It is very possible that an unscrupulous applicant next in line may forward a fax message intimating withdrawal of an admitted student from the programme so that he being the next person in the waiting list can secure admission, which danger is very much there if such fax messages are acted upon. Therefore, I have no difficulty in countenancing the contentions of respondents 2 to 4 that w.p.c.30355/09 4 they could not have validly acted upon on the basis of that fax message without some positive authorisation from the petitioner, which can be validly acted upon. That authorisation came only on 31.7.2009, when the petitioner's mother approached them for the certificates. Therefore, they could have acted only after the mother of the petitioner approached them on 31.7.2009 for return of the certificates of the petitioner. By that time, the admission had already been closed on 30.7.2009 and the vacant seat could not have been filled up by another candidate after that date. Therefore, I am satisfied that respondents 2 to 4 have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the prospectus in insisting on payment of the balance course fee for return of the original officiates to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge