IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21860 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAHUL S.S., S/O.N.SALIM, "SRUTHI". YEROOR P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN:691 312. BY ADV. SRI.K.NIRMALAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. M/S.MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, OLATHANNY, NEYYATTINKARA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, R.MURUGAN. 2. MR.WILSON, EX-CHAIRMAN, M/S.MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, OLATHANNY, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SRI.M.S.KALESH, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SRI.V.VINAY MENON, SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21861 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21860/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 27/06/2007 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 16/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 10/07/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/06/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15TH JUNE, 2008. R1(B): COPY OF THE LIST OF PAYMENTS PREPARED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COLLEGE INDICATING PAYMENT AS ON 12/06/2009. R1(C): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, HELD ON 19/11/2008. R1(D): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY, TO THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY. R1(E): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 05/06/2008. R1(F):COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL BODY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 05/06/2008. R1(G): COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER FOR B.TECH COURSE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2007. R1(H): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DTD. 26/08/2009. R1(I): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT INDICATING NON RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,23,150/- BY THE SOCIETY. R1(J): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PREMISES OFFICER/ SECURITY OFFICER OF THE COLLEGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) Nos. 21860 & 21861 of 2009 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are filed by two students who claim to have secured admission in the first respondent's college for B.Tech course. According to them, they were provisionally admitted to the course during the year 2006. They claim that they have paid Rs.4,63,150/- and Rs.4,23,480/- towards refundable development fund, caution deposit and course fees for four years, as evidenced by receipts produced by them. But, according to them, they could not join the course, as they got admission to other colleges and obtained Transfer Certificate from the first respondent's college. They contend that thereafter, they repeatedly requested for refund of the amount paid by them to the college and since there was no favourable response from the respondents, they have filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:- “i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to return the amount collected from the petitioner as evidenced by Exhibits W.P.(C) No. 21860/2009 & con. case 2 P2 and P3 within a stipulated time period. ii) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the first respondent in both the writ petitions. They would contend that these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners in collusion with the second respondent, who was at one time a governing body member of the first respondent and Chairman. According to them, as per the admission register maintained by the college, the petitioners were never admitted to the college. They also produced copies of the admission register for the relevant period, during which the petitioners' claim to have obtained admission. They also disown the receipts produced by the petitioners, stating that those receipts were not issued from the first respondent college and that the accounts of the college do not show that any such amounts have been received by the college. In support of their contention they have produced certificate W.P.(C) No. 21860/2009 & con. case 3 from Chartered Accountant who has audited their account, certifying that no amounts were received from the petitioners, as claimed by them. 3. A reply affidavit has been filed. Although the second respondent accepted notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. I have heard both sides. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21860 of 2009 has produced Ext.P1 letter from the college, which reads as follows:- “We are pleased to provisionally admit you to the 1st year B.Tech course in Mechanical Engineering in Mary Matha College of Engineering & Technology, subject to your eligibility at the Entrance Test conducted by the CEE or consortium of Management Association. Our classes will be commenced on July 16, 2007 and the fee will be paid only in the college office on the same day. We wish you all the best and have a wonderful time in discovering your stream with us.” 5. The petitioner in the other writ petition has not produced any such document. The above said document mentions that Sri. S.S.Rahul was provisionally admitted to W.P.(C) No. 21860/2009 & con. case 4 the first year B.Tech course, subject to his eligibility in the Entrance Test conducted by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination or Consortium of Management Association. The petitioners have not produced any document before this Court to show that they have been included in a ranked list prepared either by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination or Consortium of Management Association. In fact apart from the receipts, they have not produced any document whatsoever relating to their admission to the college. Interview card and intimation, regarding admission, etc. have not been produced. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21860/2009 claims that he had obtained a Transfer Certificate for joining another college. That Transfer Certificate has also not been produced. As such there is no reliable document before me to prove that the petitioners in these writ petitions were admitted to the first respondent's college. Although the petitioners have produced certain receipts allegedly for payment of fees etc., they do not contain any seal of the college or any W.P.(C) No. 21860/2009 & con. case 5 identifiable signature. The first respondent categorically denies having issued such receipts. They also categorically contend that the admission register of the college does not contain the names of these petitioners as having admitted to the college at any time. They also contend that no amounts covered by the receipts produced by the petitioners have been received by the college and that these receipts were not issued from the college at all. 6. In these circumstances, without taking evidence regarding the veracity of the documents, I do not think that I can decide these writ petitions in favour of the petitioners. The same cannot be done in these writ petitions. The petitioners have to prove the same before a forum where the petitioners can adduce evidence in support of their contentions. Without prejudice that right of the petitioners, these writ petitions are dismissed. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. mn.