IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 28658 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIDHI SADHAN LOURDES COLLEGE OF NURSING, CHEMBUMUKKU, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. DIVYA AMARIA JOSEPH, D/O. K.P. JOSEPH, KONNOTH HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC. R2 BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 28658/2008-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND HER BROTHER DATED 15/10/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 23/10/2007 THAT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DATED 20/10/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INVOICE FOR ADVERTISEMENT CHRGES DATED 24/10/2007 RELATING TO MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE INVOICE FOR ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES DATED 22/10/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/06/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 3445/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 04/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28658 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a College of Nursing. The 2nd respondent herein joined the college for the General Nursing and Midwifery Course for the period 2006-2008. At the time of joining the course, the 2nd respondent paid the entire course fee and other fees in advance for an year. According to the 2nd respondent, she had paid a total amount of Rs. 63,350/- on 20-9-2007. Within ten days, the 2nd respondent got admission in Bangalore for B.Sc. Nursing and she decided to join that course. The petitioner was initially not prepared to return the original certificates submitted by her at the time of admission to the 2nd respondent and later on pursuant to a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the certificates were returned. However, in spite of repeated requests made by the 2nd respondent, the advance fee collected from her was not refunded by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent filed a representation to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent obtained Ext. P4 judgment from this Court in W.P(C) No. 3445/2008 for disposal of the said representation. Pursuant thereto, by Ext. P6 order, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to refund to the 2nd respondent an amount of Rs. 26,229/- after adjusting the expenses incurred by the petitioner for making admission to another student to the seat vacated by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 order. According to the petitioner, for relieving the 2nd respondent from the college, the 2nd respondent's brother had undertaken to pay the entire expenses incurred by the petitioner for making admission to another student to that college. The procedure involved publication of advertisements inviting applications in two Malayalam dailies. The petitioner would contend that as is evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 series, the petitioner had published notices in two W.P.C. No. 28658/2008 -: 2 :- Malayalam dailies as required by law. But, in Ext. P6, the advertisement charges for publication in the Mathrubhoomi daily alone was taken into account and the expenses incurred by the petitioner for publishing the advertisement in the Malayala Manorama was excluded for calculating the expenses for the admission on the sole ground that in Form 3 filled up by the petitioner the same was not mentioned. The petitioner would contend that insofar as there is no dispute that the advertisement was published in Malayala Manorama also and the 2nd respondent and her brother had undertaken to pay the entire expenses, the 2nd respondent is liable to reimburse the expenses for publication in the Malayala Manorama daily also. If that amount is also adjusted, then no amount would be refundable to the 2nd respondent insofar as the total expenses would be more than the fees paid by the 2nd respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. The respondents could not dispute that the petitioner had published advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily also and that the expenses incurred by the petitioner for the same have not been taken into account in Ext. P6 order. Admittedly the 2nd respondent had undertaken to meet the expenses for admission to another student in the seat vacated by the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, I do not think that the 2nd respondent can escape from the liability to pay the advertisement charges for publication in Malayala Manorama also. In Ext. P6, admittedly that amount has not been taken into account. Therefore, clearly Ext. P6 is against the agreement between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is quashed. Ext. P3 shows that the W.P.C. No. 28658/2008 -: 3 :- advertisement charges paid by the petitioner for publication in the Malayala Manorama daily is Rs. 31,162/-, which that is more than what has been directed to be refunded as per Ext. P6, which is Rs. 26,229/-. Accordingly, I hold that the the petitioner is not liable to refund any amounts to the 2nd respondent by way of refund of the fees paid by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/