IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6006 of 2011(A) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. DIYA P.ALBERT, PARAMBILOTH HOUSE, CHERANALLORE P.O., KOCHI-682 034. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, CALICUT MEDICAL COLLEGE, CALICUT MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 601. BY SENION GOVT.PLEADER JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JM WP(C).No. 6006 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL POST-GRADUATE DEGREE/DIPLOMA COURSES-2010 P1(A): COPY OF RECEIPT DT. 4.5.2010 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS. 45065/- ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER P2: COPY OF BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 5.5.2010 P3: COPY OF ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT, DT. 19.7.2010 RENDERED IN I A NO.2/2010, IA NO. 6 OF 2010 AND IA NO. OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 189 OF 2010 P4: COPY OF RECEIPT DT. 24.7.2010 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.500000 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER P5: PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.B2/4500/2010/DME DT. 22.7.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P6: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. B2/4500/2010 DME DT. 24.7.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT P7: COPY OF CHART SHOWING VACANCY POSITION OF PG MEDICAL COURSES 2010 AS ON 24.7.2010 P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 26.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS P9: COPY OF LETTER NO. B2/11297/10/MCC DT. 6.8.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT P10: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 28.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF LETTER NO. 51322/S3/2010/H&FWD DT. 2.2.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL \\TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 6006 of 2011 A ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ After acquiring MBBS degree, petitioner appeared in the entrance examination for admission to Post Graduate course. Accordingly, she got included in the ranked list and was allotted to the third respondent college for M.S. in Obstretics and Gynecology for the Academic Year 2010-2011. Subsequently, petitioner withdrew from the course on 24.07.2010, when, in view of the prospectus conditions, she had to pay liquidated damages of `5 lakhs and also refund the stipend/salary already received. 2. Subsequently, she made Ext.P10 representation seeking refund of the liquidated damages which was rejected by Ext.P11 relying on the prospectus conditions. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed, seeking to quash Ext.P11 and direct the respondents to refund the liquidated damages realised from her. Main ground on W.P.(C) No.6006/2011 : 2 : which this prayer is sought is that subsequent to the petitioner leaving the college, the seat vacated by her was filled up by admitting one Dr.Sreeja R. and that, therefore, the seat having not been wasted, the respondents are not entitled to realise liquidated damages. 3. The fact that another student was admitted in the seat vacated by the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents. 4. A case similar in all respects was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.15844/2011. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 09.12.2011. In that case, this Court held thus:- “7. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am inclined tothink that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. First of all, the provision for liquidated damages is incorporated in the prospectus to take care of a situation where a student vacates the seat and consequently that seat is wasted causing loss to the W.P.(C) No.6006/2011 : 3 : educational institution. Such a situation has not arisen here, though on account of subsequent developments. 8. Secondly, the prospectus condition is to the effect that the student is liable if he discontinues after the final Centralised allotment process. In this case, irrespective of the explanations offered in the counter affidavit, it is a fact that on 23.07.2010 and 24.07.2010, rank lists were published and another candidate was allotted to the seat. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner discontinued the Course after the final Centralised allotment. Therefore, for all these grounds, there is no justification for penalising the petitioner by realising the liquidated damages which he had remitted as per Ext.P9.” On that basis, liquidated damages realised from the student was ordered to be refunded. 5. Since the issue is similar in all respects, petitioner is also entitled to get same treatment. Therefore, I dispose of W.P.(C) No.6006/2011 : 4 : the writ petition, quashing Ext.P11 and directing the first respondent to refund `5 lakhs realised from the petitioner towards liquidated damages. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/16/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge