THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.514 of 2010 July 16, 2010 Between: Vanka Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o.Vanka Rajulu … Appellant And The Principal, Gokul Institute of Technology and Sciences, Piridi, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.514 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.3.2010 of the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the writ petition being W.P.No.22182 of 2009 filed by the appellant was disposed of directing the first respondent to recalculate fee payable by appellant under various heads and thereafter on payment of the said amount first respondent was directed to issue transfer and other certificates to appellant to enable her to join in the second respondent College. The appellant is student of M.B.A. She was admitted to first year course in the first respondent College on 17.9.2008. She appeared for the first semester and secured 76% attendance. She was promoted to second semester of first year. On the ground that she did not put up required 75% attendance she was not permitted to appear for the final examinations of second semester. She therefore filed W.P.No.15246 of 2009 seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent College in not calculating the attendance properly and not allowing her for second semester examinations as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is also sought. This Court issued interim direction by virtue of which she appeared for second semester examinations. Her results were directed to be withheld. The appellant approached the first respondent for necessary transfer certificate. In October 2009, she filed W.P.No.22182 of 2009 out which present writ appeal arises seeking a direction to first respondent to transfer her to second respondent College. She alleged that the Principal of first respondent is harassing her and that she was not allowed to attend classes from 10.8.2009. The writ petition was opposed by the first respondent inter alia on the ground that as she has not paid the dues to the College she was not give the transfer certificate. Learned Judge having regard to the admission made by petitioner’s counsel disposed of the writ petition in the following manner. In my opinion, if the petitioner has already paid the first year dues, she is not liable to pay the sum of Rs.26,700/- towards the purported rejoined fee. Respondent No.1 is directed to recalculate the fee payable by the petitioner under various heads. It is made clear that the petitioner is liable to pay the sum of Rs.6,700/- towards first year dues and Rs.4,000/- towards miscellaneous fee and Rs.26,700/- towards tuition fee for second year MBA course. The further sum of Rs.26,700/- will be payable by the petitioner only if it is shown that she has not paid the first year MBA tuition fee earlier. Respondent No.1 shall intimate the fees dues, afresh, to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. On payment of all the dues calculated in the light of the above observations, respondent No.1 shall issue Transfer and other certificates to the petitioner to enable her to join in respondent No.2-college. The counsel for appellant submits that petitioner is liable to pay Rs.26,700/- for the first year. The Government has sanctioned Rs.20,000/- as fee, which was adjusted towards first year tuition fee. He however does not dispute that the petitioner is still liable to pay Rs.6,700/- towards balance fee and Rs.4,000/- towards miscellaneous fee. Insofar as demand made by the College for balance of rejoined fee is concerned, learned Single Judge held in her favour that she is not liable to pay the same. There is no dispute that the appellant has not paid balance of Rs.6,700/- towards first year and she has to pay Rs.26,700/- for the second year. Therefore the learned Judge directed first respondent to recalculate the fee. In that view of the matter, no dispute requires adjudication. We do not find any substance in the appeal. The writ appeal, for the above reasons, is dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J) July 16, 2010 YS