IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32463 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. U.JAYASANKAR, S/O.G.UDAYABHANU,AGED 19 YEARS, KOUSTHUBHAM,KURAMPALA,PANDALAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 501. 2. G.UDAYABHANU,S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, KOUSTHUBHAM,KURAMPALA,PANDALAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT- 689 501. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.ASOKAN, SRI.JOSON JACOB, SRI.P.J.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (ADUKKATH), SRI.P.B.AJOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 034. W.P.(C).NO.32463/2011-G: 4. ST.THOMAS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,PROMOTED BY THE MARTHOMA CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MAR CHRYSOSTAM NAGAR,KATTAIKONAM P.O, KAZHAKOOTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 584. 5. MARTHOMA CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.M.ABRAHAM, ST.THOMAS NAGAR,MUKKOLAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 044. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH. R3 BY SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.32463/2011-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/4/2011 SEND BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/5/2011 SEND TO THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/06/2011 SEND BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/08/2011 SEND TO THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/11/2011 SEND BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/11/2011 SEND TO THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES FOR THE YEAR 2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32463 of 2011 G ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ First petitioner had joined the fourth respondent college for B.Tech during the Academic Year 2010-2011. Subsequently, he sought T.C. from the college. By Exts.P2 and P4 issued by the fifth respondent, the Educational Agency, petitioner was asked to pay liquidated damages payable in terms of clause 12.2.4(a) of the prospectus. It is thereupon this writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the aforesaid provision of the prospectus and also to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the damages. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. Admittedly, petitioner discontinued the course after closing of the admissions. As a result of the above, the provisions of clause 12.2.4(a) of the prospectus are W.P.(C) No.32463/2011 : 2 : attracted in the case of the petitioner. In such a situation, if the management of the college demanded payment of liquidated damages from the student, such demand of the management cannot be said to be illegal. 3. As far as the validity of clause 12.2.4(a) of the prospectus providing for levy of liquidated damages is concerned, this provision has been incorporated in the prospectus, mainly to compensate the loss that is caused to the Educational Agencies on account of the discontinuance of courses by students resulting in wastage of a seat. Object being this, it cannot be said that there is anything illegal in such a clause in the prospectus. 4. The petitioner applied for the course and secured the admission knowing fully well of the liability to pay liquidated damages in the event of discontinuing the course. If that be so, when he creates a situation attracting the liability to pay damages, petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the provisions of the prospectus providing for liquidated W.P.(C) No.32463/2011 : 3 : damages. 5. I do not see any illegality either in the prospectus or in the demand of liquidated damages. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/07/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge