THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 30.09.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.9407 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 V.V.S.Dwarakanath ... Petitioner Vs 1.Anna University, Rep. By Registrar, Chennai – 600 025. 2.The Principal, T.J.Institute of Techology, Keerappakkam, Chennai – 600 096. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the first respondent's proceedings in Memo No.6760/SA 20/NRI/2007-08 dated 24.03.2008 and quash the same and allow the petitioner to complete the B.E.Mechanical course in the 2nd respondent's institute. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr. Seethapathy for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates for R1 Mr.V.Manisekaran for R2 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Anna University and the learned counsel for the second respondent institution. 2. The petitioner got admission in the second respondent institution, which is a self financing college in the first year B.E. Mechanical Engineering for the academic year 2007- 2008 under NRI quota. It is seen that he has also deposited a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum of US $ 1000 to the second respondent college as development charges. However, under the impugned order, the first respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner to be considered under the second respondent college for admission under NRI quota on the basis that the sponsor has not come within the relationship prescribed by the Anna University in the application, especially in Paragraph No.14 of the application. The case of the petitioner is that the sponsor is a person, who is stated as if the petitioner's mother and the sponsor's mother are cousins and therefore, as per the stipulation by the University, he is not eligible for consideration under NRI quota. The fact remains that he has not been admitted in the first year in 2007-2008. However, there has been an interim direction in this writ petition permitting the petitioner to write the first year examination, without prejudice and subject to the result of the writ petition. 3. On hearing the first respondent university, it is clear that the petitioner as such is not eligible for admission on the basis of NRI quota, based on his own application which he has filed and submitted to the University. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner would be eligible for admission as person belonging to Forward Community for the academic year 2008-2009, since the petitioner has got 55.7%, he can be directed to be considered for admission in the second respondent college. He would also submit that the last date for admission in the private colleges was 21.09.2008. 4. Considering the special situation in this case that the petitioner was permitted to write examinations for the academic year 2007-2008 and he has already paid the necessary fees to the second respondent college for the academic year 2007-2008, the fees already paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2007-2008 shall be directed to considered as fees payable for the academic year 2008-2009 as if the same has been paid before the cut off date namely 21.09.2008, for which the learned counsel for the second respondent has no objection. 5. In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to take into account the fees already paid by the petitioner for the academic year 2007-2008 to be treated as the fees for the first year of the academic year 2008-2009. The second respondent is directed to send necessary proposal to the University by treating the admission of the petitioner for the academic year 2008-2009 in the Forward Community Quota which was made before the cut off date 21.09.2008 and on such proposal send by the second respondent, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders in approving the admission through the Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. As far as the development charges of US $ 1000 stated to have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been paid by the petitioner to the second respondent, the petitioner is entitled for refund since he is not considered now under NRI quota. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to make necessary representation to the second respondent, in which event, it is for the second respondent either to consider the refund of the said amount or to adjust the said amount for the subsequent years fees in respect of the fees payable in the subsequent years. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Svki Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Registrar, Anna University,Chennai – 600 025. 2.The Principal, T.J.Institute of Techology, Keerappakkam,Chennai – 600 096. • 1 cc to Mr. M. Muthuppan, Advocate SR No. 56508 • 1 cc to Mr. M. Rajasekar, Advocate SR No. 56316 • 1 cc to Mr. A. Vijayakumar, Advocate SR No. 56284 W.P.No.9407 of 2008 GV(CO) SR/7.10.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/