IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2009 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.19908 of 2009 M.Sumer ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Chairman, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu,Chennai – 600 095. 2.The Principal, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai 600 095. 3.The Administrative Officer, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai – 600 095. 4.The Director, Department of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2009 immediately. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Desingh For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for R1 to R3 Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi for R4 O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a student. After completing his Plus 2 course, he joined the first respondent PMR Institute of Technology at Adayalampattu, Chennai – 95 for the academic year 2008. He claimed that he had paid the entire fees and other miscellaneous expenses to the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner after completion of his first year in the Information Technology, for the second year, he paid the necessary fees. The petitioner found that he did not secure sufficient marks in the first year. In the mean time, his father, who was a bank employee was transferred to Thanjavur District. Since his family was shifted to Thanjavur, he sought for his transfer certificate and other related documents. Since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same was not furnished by the respondents, he sent a telegraphic notice for the return of the Transfer Certificate and other documents. It is stated that he also sent a representation dated 14.08.2009 to the respondents. Since his certificates were not returned, he has come forward with the writ petition to direct the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 14.08.2009 in accordance with law. 3. Notice was ordered on this writ petition. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.A.C.Manibharathi, learned Government Advocate, took notice for the fourth respondent. 4. A counter affidavit dated 27.01.2009 was filed on behalf of the first respondent. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that if any student wanted to discontinue the course in the middle or leave the institution, they will have to pay the tuition fees for the entire course and since the petitioner did not pay the fees, his transfer certificate was retained. It is also stated that if the petitioner pays the entire fees for his 3rd and 4th years of study to the college, Transfer Certificate will be given. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. The State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697. In that case, it was stated that an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any student may leave in midstream then, a bond/bank guarantee can be obtained for the whole course. If any institution has collected fees in advance, that amount can be kept in a Fixed Deposit and it can be utilised year after year and the interest on such deposit can be returned to the student. The Islamic Academy's case (cited supra) came up for consideration by the Supreme court in P.A.Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005(6) SCC 537. The passage quoted by the respondent do not find acceptance in that case. Further nowhere in the said judgment, there is any reference to withholding of the Transfer and other Certificates. 6. The respondent cannot trace any sustenance from the said judgment to withhold the Transfer Certificate only on the ground that the full fees for 3rd and 4th year were not paid. In the present case, the petitioner did not even attend his second year class. 7. A further contention was raised that there was a column in the application form where a declaration was given by the candidate agreeing to pay the full tuition fees if he leaves the college during the middle of the course. Such a document cannot authorise the first respondent to have lien over the Transfer Certificate. If at all it can only be a civil liability, which the respondent will have to establish before an appropriate civil court and cannot take the law into their own hands by holding the Transfer Certificate as ransom and thus ruin the life of an young student. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Attention of this Court was drawn to an order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.11477 of 2009 dated 16.07.2009 (P.R.Rakesh v. Directorate of Technical Education). This Court in that case had referred to the public notice issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), wherein it has been stated as follows: "In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the institution/University to the student/ candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidates by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable." (Emphasis added) 9. After referring to the said public notice given by AICTE, this Court directed the respondent to issue the Transfer Certificate and other original certificates if any submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission. 10. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to issue the Transfer Certificate and other original certificates withheld by them forthwith without claiming any further amount to be paid in respect of 3rd and 4th year, for which course the petitioner had never studied. It is stated by the petitioner that though he did not continue his course for the second year, he is not claiming the amount already paid for the second year. Recording the same, the writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Chairman, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu,Chennai – 600 095. 2.The Principal, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai 600 095. 3.The Administrative Officer, PMR Institute of Technology, Adayalampattu, Chennai – 600 095. 4.The Director, Department of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 1 cc To Mr.K.Desingh, Advocate, SR.64134. 1 cc To Mr.R.Suresh, Advocate, SR.64044. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.64525. W.P.No.19908 of 2009 MBS(CO) RVL 07.12.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/