IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 12404 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANNAM AYURVEDA CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE, M.S.M (PO), PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SMT.T.SUDHA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDING, RAM MOHAN PALACE, HALL NO.III, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. ANJU RAJ R., MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN G.RAJAN PILLAI, NAMBATTINCHIRA MELATHIL VEEDU, ATTOORKONAM, KARINGANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.12404/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL, AGRICULTURE, VETERINARY, ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE DEGREE COURSES 2010, KERALA ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6.11.2010 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16.11.2010 FORWARDED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 3.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28.3.2011 FORWARDED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3268 DTD. 29.9.2010 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,02,000/-. R2(b):- COPY OF THE PAYMENT SLIP DTD. 18.10.2010 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 40,000/-. R2(c):- COPY OF THE ADMISSION MEMO DTD. 19.10.2010 ISSUED TO ANJU RAJ BY THE PRINCIPAL P N N M AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE. R2(d):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 12.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MADAVOOR SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. R2(e):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND ITS REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT. 8.12.2010. R2(f):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 16.4.2011 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 6.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12404 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Self Financing College. The 2nd respondent, a student, was admitted in the college during the academic year 2009-10 for the BAMS Course in the management quota. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent remitted `1,02,000/- towards the fee payable. On that basis, the 2nd respondent joined the college and also attended the classes during September and October, 2010. 2. Subsequently, based on a higher option and the allotment by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination to the Government Ayurveda Medical College, Cheruthuruty at Shoranur, 2nd respondent submitted application dated 18/10/2010 to the petitioner for issuance of transfer certificate. T.C. was issued and on that basis 2nd respondent joined the Government Medical College also. 3. However, her application for refund of the fee paid was not allowed by the management relying on Clause 12.2.3 of the prospectus, the extract of which is Ext.P1. According to the WPC No. 12404/11 :2 : management, the last date for cancellation of the admission was 15/10/2010 and that the petitioner made her application for T.C only on 18/10/2010, and hence, they are not liable to refund of fee. Therefore, the 2nd respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 proceedings directing that the fee of `1,02,000/- be refunded. It is challenging Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent, the writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 12.2.3(i) of the prospectus, which reads as under:- “12.2.3(i) No refund of fees will be made to candidates who apply for Transfer Certificate/Cancellation of admission under any circumstances, after the last date of cancellation of admission notified by the CEE. They will have to pay Liquidated damages as stipulated in Clause 12.2.4 below.” 5. A reading of this provision of the prospectus shows that if certificate is applied for after the date of cancellation of admission notified by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, the management has no liability to refund the fee. 6. Ext.P6 is the communication issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, which indicates that the last date for cancellation of admission of a student admitted in the WPC No. 12404/11 :3 : petitioner's college was 11/10/2010 and that such cancellation are to be intimated to the Commissioner on or before 15/10/2010. Although it is on this basis the management seeks to justify its refusal to refund the fee, still a reading of Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent indicates that the 2nd respondent was relieved before the last date specified for completion of admission namely 30/10/2010 and that subsequently the seat vacated by the 2nd respondent was filled up by the petitioner management on 18/10/2010. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner also. Thus, it is obvious that, although the application for T.C made by the 2nd respondent was after 15/10/2010, still the seat vacated by the 2nd respondent could be utilised by the management by admitting another student. In other words, the seat did not go waste or that the management did not suffer any damages on account of the transfer certificate obtained by the 2nd respondent. 7. In my view, Clause 12.2.3. has been incorporated in the prospectus mainly to take care of the situation where loss is caused to the management on account of the belated transfer obtained by students resulting in the seats going waste. Such a situation has WPC No. 12404/11 :4 : not occurred in the instant case, and therefore, I am inclined to think that no injustice has been caused by the 1st respondent by issuing Ext.P5 warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp