Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 19, 2010 Meenu Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Shri Guru Ramdass Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Amritsar & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Manish Prabhaker, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly to seek return of the original certificates submitted by her with respondent No.1 at the time of her admission in B.D.S.Course. Further prayer is Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 2 : to direct respondent No.1 to refund fee of `3,17,900/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as she had vacated the seat, for which she was admitted with the respondent College. The petitioner was granted admission in the category of Sikh Minority quota in B.D.S.Course with respondent College on 28.7.2008. She paid a sum of `3,17,900/- and submitted her original certificates. In the second counselling, the petitioner was granted admission in Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital Sirhind Road, Patiala in the Government quota. The petitioner accordingly claims to have informed respondent No.1 on 29.9.2008 about this fact and asked for return of original certificates and so also for refund of the fee, which she had paid to the respondent College. The petitioner also served a legal notice on 5.10.2008. The College responded by refusing to pay back the money as well as to return the original certificates. The petitioner accordingly filed the present writ petition to claim return of certificates and refund of fee. Reply is filed on behalf of the College. Reference is made to the provisions of the prospectus, where it is provided that every student admitted to the respondent Institute for the B.D.S.Course, whether under the Sikh Minority Community quota or under the State quota through Punjab PMET-2008, shall have to furnish individual year Bank Guarantee/Bond for the amount equivalent to each years course fee alongwith an undertaking that he or she would not seek migration to any other institution nor shall he or she leave the studies midstream without completing the full course, until and unless he or Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 3 : she deposits the balance amount of fee for the full course. Reference is also made to the provisions of Clause 5.4 of the prospectus, which reads as under:- “A candidate once admitted to MBBS/BDS Course shall not be allowed to leave the Institute unless a bonafide replacement is available before the last date for admission as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, i.e., 30.09.2008. The student leaving the Institute on his own accord shall forfeit his security and fee deposit. In addition, he will be liable to pay fee for the entire course.” Counsel for the respondent-College further submits that there was a contract between the petitioner and the College and the petitioner is bound by the terms on which she agreed to deposit the fee and now cannot ask for refund of the amount. Further prayer is that no communication was received by the College before 30.9.2008 and if it had been otherwise, the issue of refund of fee may have been considered. In addition, the counsel for respondent No.1 also draws my attention to a notice contained in the prospectus and would emphasis on the following lines, which are as under:- “..............This provision is being made in accordance with the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to safeguard the unaided Institutes from resultant financial loss on account of such a student's seat remaining vacant for the remaining period of the course.” The counsel, therefore, submits that no right for refund of the fee has been made out. So far as the original certificates are Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 4 : concerned, the College has already returned the same to the petitioner under the directions of this Court. I have heard the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The submission that a candidate, who seeks admission to B.D.S. Course, whether under the Sikh Minority Community quota or under the Government quota, is required to furnish individual year bank guarantee or bond for the amount equivalent to each years course fee and the undertaking which he or she is to file would relate to the situation where a candidate seeks migration to another Institution. The other aspect is that where such a candidate leaves the seat midstream without completing the full course. That situation, in my view, does not strictly arise in the present case. Here the candidate has sought admission in the category of Sikh Minority quota which she was granted during first counselling. She had deposited the fee. In the second counselling and before 30.9.2008, the petitioner was able to get a seat in the Government quota, for which she was to pay a much lesser fee compared to the fee deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-College. The fee now payable for Government seat is ` 63,000/- yearly only. There is dispute about the date when the petitioner had made an application intimating the respondent-College that she would be vacating the seat. As per the petitioner, she wrote this letter prior to 30.9.2008. Yet that alone may not be a governing factor to determine the refund of fee. As per the counsel for respondent No.1, the petitioner had attended the classes for some days. Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 5 : A sum of ` three lacs is not a small amount. An individual, who has looked for change of seat with an aim to save money certainly would be finding it difficult to marshal resources to pay this substantial amount. Such liability would have been for future as well till the completion of study. Even the candidates having resources and capacity to pay fee would be interested in saving money. A College with vast resources is resisting hard to keep the fee taken, though the petitioner has left the College on getting seat where she would be paying much less fee. Initial aim of such student would always be to secure a seat in professional College. A person would go beyond his/her means to get admission at any cost before looking for any other option. Colleges are adopting a total commercial attitude. If the aim is to impart education, then commercialisation has to have a back seat. The provision which authorises the College to forfeit fee is a confiscatory in nature. Merely because the petitioner filed application a few days after the deadline ( though it is disputed ) can not result in harsh consequences. A candidate looking for admission has no option even to question any provision at the time of admission and has to accept the same without demur. At that stage, it is one way traffic. The petitioner had hardly pursued her study to earn forfeiture of this substantial amount. Though not under challenge but this provision of the prospectus may not strictly pass the test of being reasonable, if it is permitted to operate in this manner. One may have to see this provision differently if the seat is left after last date of admission and when bonafide replacement is not available. No submissions are made that replacement was not Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 : 6 : available against this seat. College still would not go into loss and must be earning profit and should not enrich itself at the cost of some poor students. The petitioner has not left the seat for some unjustified reason and did so before last date. More so, respondent No.1 College is being run by Sikh Gurdwara Prabhank Committee (S.G.P.C.), an institution of high repute and unparalleled standard. It cannot be expected to behave like other normal colleges, which may be adopting a commercial approach. S.G.P.C. is known to distribute largesse and charities and approach adopted does not sound in consonance with aims of this great institution. A case for issuing direction to refund the fee, thus, is made out. In peculiar facts of this case, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.1 is directed to refund the fee of the petitioner within one month from today. The claim of the petitioner for grant of interest as claimed, however, is declined. November 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE