(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2203 OF 1999 Yogita d/o. Rameshchandra Jaiswal, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Student, R/o. 58-B, Vidya Vihar Colony, Chopada, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Dept., Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Director of Ayurved, Directorate of Ayurvedic, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, 4th Floor, P.W.D. Complex, Ramkrishna Chembur Marg, Chembur, Mumbai. 3. Principal, Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya, Shivajinagar, Rahuri Factory, Taluka : Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. R.N. Bharaswadkar, Advocate, holding for Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar and Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner was admitted to first year of B.H.M.S. course on 29th August 1997, in respondent no.3 / college, against a payment seat. By the present petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent no.3 / college, to return the fees, recovered by it from the petitioner, while giving admission to the payment seat for the academic year 1997-98. 2. According to the petitioner, though she was entitled to be admitted against a free seat, she was admitted against a payment seat. It is submitted that only on account of orders passed by this Court, dated 1st April 1998, in Writ Petition No. 5665/1997, the petitioner has been transferred in a free seat and, (3) as such, the payment which was received from the petitioner, for the first year of the B.H.M.S. course, is liable to be returned. 3. Mr. R.N. Bharaswadkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that only on account of failure on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was not accommodated as against a free seat and, as such, she is entitled for refund of fees. 4. Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner has completed her studies in first two semesters against a payment seat and, as such, she is not entitled for refund of fees. It is submitted that after the orders of this Court, she has been accommodated in a free seat, for which no extra fees is charged and only fees, chargeable for the students admitted against free seat, is charged. 5. From the perusal of the order dated 1st April 1998, in Writ Petition No. 5665/1997, it is clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has extended the date of enrollment up to 15th April 1998, only for the purpose of admitting by transfer, the students on the free seats who had already taken admission as per Rule No.9 and were undergoing the studies. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted in the college on 29th August 1997. As such, the education which the (4) petitioner has taken, from the date of her admission till her transfer, as against free seat, in pursuance to the order dated 1st April 1998, will have to be considered as against payment seat. 6. As the petitioner has taken her education for the first two semesters against a payment seat, we do not find that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount, as prayed in the petition. 7. The petition is devoid of any merit and, as such, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2203