IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10376 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEETHU UNNI, D/O.M.UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEBHAVAN, VARAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. VEDAVYASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PONNEMPADAM P.O., KARADPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, VEDAVYASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KARADPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R2 SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BAIJU CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the allotment memo issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination dt.31.8.08 Ext.P2. True copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP(c).No.252/09 dt.8.1.2009. Ext.P3. True copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent dt.13.1.2009. Ext.P4. True copy of the letter issued by the first respondent to the third respondent dt.5.3.2009. Ext.P5. True copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the third respondent dt.23.3.2009.// t // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10376 OF 2009-N ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was admitted as a student in the 2nd respondent Engineering College. Subsequent to her joining in the College she secured admission for BHMS Course. When TC was declined to be issued, she approached this court by filing WP(c).No252/09 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that, on the petitioner remitting the liquidated damages provided in the prospectus, TC shall be issued to the petitioner. It is stated that payment was made and T.C. was given. 2. Subsequently she made Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent requesting for instructing the college to refund the tuition fee, hostel fee and caution deposit towards which Rs.30,750/-,20,000/- and 5000/- respectively were collected. The first respondent issued WP(c).No.10376/09 2 Ext.P4 direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the amount. Despite Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner the amount was not refunded and hence this writ petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed, 2nd respondent relied on clause 12:2:3 of the prospectus, it is stated that if cancellation of admission is after the closure of the admission, no refund of fee will be made to a candidate. It is stated that the admission to the course was closed on 31.8.2009, where as the TC was issued to the petitioner only on 12.2.2008. Obviously therefore the cancellation of the admission was long after the closure of the admission and if that be so the petitioner cannot claim refund of the tuition fee. 4. In so far as the caution deposit is concerned, it is stated that the said amount has already been refunded and therefore that claim stands satisfied. 5. Now what remains is claim of refund of Rs.20,000/- paid towards hostel fee. Obviously the clause in the prospectus relied on by the College cannot govern the hostel WP(c).No.10376/09 3 fee collected from the student. Though, going by the pleading of the respondent, TC was issued on 12.2.2009, it is the case of the petitioner that she availed the hostel facility only till 17.12.2008, when the college was closed. In such circumstances, it is only fair and reasonable that the college should only realise fee for that portion of the academic year for which period the student had availed of the hostel facility and refund the balance amount. This the 2nd respondent shall do on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.10376/09 4