1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1374 OF 2001 Kum. Deepali Nanasaheb Gaikwad, Age : 19 Years, Occu. : Student, R/o Loni Khurd, Tq. Rahta, District Ahmednagar. .. .. PETITIONER Versus 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Gangapur Road, Anandvalli, Nashik, through its Registrar. 3. Director of Medical Education and Research, Govt. Dental College Building, 04th Floor, St. George's Hospital Compound, Mumbai. 4. Siddhakala Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Nehru Chowk, Sangamner, Tq. Sanamner, District Ahmednagar, through its Principal. 5. The Principal, Siddhakala Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Nehru Chowk, Sangamner, Tq. Sanamner, District Ahmednagar, .. .. RESPONDENTS 2 Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. V. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1 and 3. Shri K. D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Shri Amol Gandhi, Advocate h/f Shri P. V. Mandalik, Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 04TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. The petitioner being desirous of seeking admission to the course in Health Science for the academic year 2000-2001 had applied to the concerned authority for the same. The respondent No. 2, the Maharashtra University of Health Science was the competent authority for conducting the CET for the admission to the Health Science. In the second round of councilling, the petitioner was provisionally admitted to the B.A.M.S. course in respondent No. 4 college. However, the admission was to a payment seat. The petitioner under went further rounds of councilling, as she had other choices. In the fourth round, the petitioner was admitted to B. Pharm course with Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy at Loni. The petitioner was informed about her selection to the B. Pharm course vide communication dated 19th January, 2001 by the competent authority and the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai. The petitioner immediately moved the respondent No. 4 and intimated that she is no longer interested in pursuing the B.A.M.S. course for which she has taken provisional admission 3 pursuant to her selection in the second round and she has decided to opt for pursuing the B. Pharm course, consequent upon her selection in Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy at Loni. The petitioner also requested the management and the college/respondent No. 4 to return all the original documents and certificates, so also the fees deposited by the petitioner. As the respondent No. 4 did not refund the amount of fees and did not return the original certificates, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition and claimed the said relief against respondent No. 4. 02. The communication dated 19th January, 2001 includes a direction from the competent authority addressed to the respondent No. 4 to return all original documents and fees to the petitioner. As the said direction was not complied by the respondent No. 4 this petition is filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rules for selection to the courses of Health Sciences for the year 2000-2001 clearly provide for refund of fees. The relevant Rule 10.5.2 reads thus : 10.5.2 FULL REFUND OF ADMISSION FEES : If the candidate cancels admission on the ground that he or she has been admitted to any other course at degree level by another Competent Authority appointed by the State Government for the same year, full refund shall be made at any stage after deducting Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only) as administrative charges. The Admission Authority or Principals of the colleges shall be responsible for making refund of all the fees paid by such candidates on production of necessary certificate from the concerned Competent Authority. If a candidate expires or becomes invalid within 90 4 days from the date of admission full refund shall be made. 03. Bare perusal of rule would clearly indicate that when a candidate cancells admission on the ground that he or she has been admitted to any other course at degree level by any other Competent Authority appointed by the State Government for the same year, full refund shall be made after deducting the sum of Rs. 500/- towards administrative charges. The said rule also lays down that the admission authority or the Principals of the college shall be responsible for making refund of the fees paid by the candidate on production of necessary certificate from the concerned competent authority. In the present case, it is undisputed that, the petitioner was initially granted admission to B.A.M.S. course after the second round in respondent No. 4 college and thereafter, was granted admission to B. Pharm degree course in the fourth round and as such, the petitioner did have an option to opt for the course to which the petitioner was selected in subsequent round. The petitioner thus was not only legally entitled to have the original documents returned, but was also entitled to refund of the fees already deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 4. The competent authority had directed the respondent No. 4 to return the original documents and fees deposited by the petitioner. There was no justification for the respondent No. 4 not to refund the fees and return the documents/certificates. 04. During the pendency of present petition, as the petitioner had made out very strong prima facie case, this Court had 5 directed the respondent No. 4 to return the original certificates and documents, so also the fees to the petitioner. In compliance of the interim order, the respondent No. 4 did return the original certificates and documents to the petitioner and deposited the amount of fees in this Court. We are informed at bar that the petitioner has withdrawn amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the sum of about Rs. 15,000/- is lying in this Court as the petitioner failed to furnish adequate security for the said balance amount. 05. No affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondent No. 4 justifying reasons for refusing to return the original certificates and documents and refund of fees. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has tried to contend that the seat to which the petitioner was admitted has gone waste as the respondent No. 4 could not admit any other student to the said seat. This statement of fact could have been made on oath by filing an affidavit in reply. However, the respondent No. 4 has chosen not to file an affidavit. Thus, we decline to consider the said submission of fact that the seat had gone waste on account of change of course by the petitioner. Even otherwise, we have no iota of doubt that the relevant rule reproduced hereinabove clearly permit the student to have refund of the fees when the admission is cancelled on the ground that the student has been admitted to some other course by the competent authority. 06. In that view of the matter, the petition must succeed. We declare that, the petitioner was and is entitled to have refund of the fees from the respondent No. 4. So also we declare that the 6 petitioner was and is entitled to have the original certificates and documents returned. Under the interim order the respondent No. 4 has already deposited the amount of fees in this Court and has returned the original documents, hence there is no need to issue any writ of mandamus in that regard. Sufficing it to convert the interim order into final order, we order accordingly. Needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the balance amount lying in this Court without furnishing any security. Petition is allowed and disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010