IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6981 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.2.2010 Harshdeep Singh … Petitioner Versus Institute of Engineering & Technology, Village Bhaddal, District Ropar through its Managing Director and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.B.L.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. Permod Kohli, J. CM No.1337 f 2010 CM is allowed. Additional affidavit is taken on record. CWP No.6981 of 2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. On being selected on the basis of the Entrance Test in the College- respondent No.1 in Computer Science & Engineering Branch in General category, the petitioner was admitted on 26.6.2008. He paid Rs.30,000/- vide receipt No.100 dated 26.6.2008 and another amount of Rs.7425 was deposited by him vide receipt No.152 dated 27.6.2008. It is alleged that the petitioner surrendered the seat before the commencement of the classes and asked for refund of the fee deposited by him. He wrote a letter dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) followed by other letters and legal notice dated 6.2.2009. The college however, refunded only amount of Rs.7620/- by retaining the amount of Rs.29,805/-. Having failed to persuade CWP No.6981 of 2009 the college to refund the fee, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to refund the fee. The University in its reply has only referred to rules governing the refund of fee and has stated that it is for the college to comply rules. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it is pleaded that the petitioner got admission on 26.6.2008 and deposited Rs.37435/-. It is also stated that classes for the course commenced on 1.8.2008 and it is only after commencement of the classes that the petitioner surrendered the seat vide application dated 19.8.2008. It is further stated that as many as 16 seats including seat vacated by the petitioner remained unfilled which has caused loss to the college amounting to Rs.2,29,525/- per month as tuition fees and total loss suffered by the Institute for four years is Rs.36,72,400/- . All the parties have relied upon rules governing refund of fee. Rule 8 contained in Part-B of Information Brochure published by the respondent-University reads as under:- “8 Rules for adjustment/refund of fees: (a) The entire fee collected from the student, after deduction of the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and the original documents submitted by the student shall be returned to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme provided the seat subsequently failing vacant has been filled by the other candidate on the waiting list by the last date of admission.” In view of the above rule, a candidate who withdraws from the programme is entitled to refund of the fee except deduction of process fee of Rs.1000/- provided the seat falling vacant has been filled up by other candidate by the last date of admission. 2 CWP No.6981 of 2009 Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, vide order dated 30.11.2009, respondent-College was asked to file an affidavit giving details of the vacant seats for the season of 2008-09 after the petitioner vacated the seat and the admission date with names of the candidates etc. In response to the aforesaid order, an affidavit of the Director of respondent No.1-Institute has been filed. It is mentioned in the affidavit that at the time of surrendering the seat by the petitioner, 57 seats were vacant, 40 students were admitted thereafter and total surrendered seats remained 16 on the last date of admission, thus the total loss suffered by the Institute for four years fee is Rs.36,72,400/- . The college has filed a list of the candidates who were admitted on different dates and also detail of the vacant seats. The petitioner surrendered his seat on 19.8.2008 on that day, 57 seats including one surrendered by the petitioner were vacant. After 19.8.2008, only 40 seats could be admitted against 57 seats, 17 seats remained vacant as on the last date of admission. It is thus, clear that 40 students admitted after surrendering of the seat by the petitioner, were in fact admitted against vacant seats, which were available with the college. Thus, the seat surrendered by the petitioner could not be filled up. In terms of the norm/rules recorded hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the fee. Dismissed. [ Permod Kohli ] Judge 4.2.2010 sd 3