IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.167 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 25.02.2008 Reetu Goyat ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sanjiv Dahiya, Advocate. vs. Mahant Chand Nath ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Pankaj Katia, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner was granted admission in B.D.S. in Baba Mast Nath Dental College, Asthal Bohar, Rohtak. The recognition of the said college, however, was withdrawn by the Dental Council of India. The petitioner and other students were accordingly shifted to other recognized dental colleges under the orders of this Court. After her transfer to some other dental college, the petitioner sought refund of the security amount deposited by her way-back on 10.1.1998 with the above-stated dental college at the time of her admission. The security amount, however, was not returned to the petitioner. She accordingly approached this Court by way of C.W.P.No.15019 of 2006 in which a direction was issued to the College Management to take an appropriate action on the representation made by her, within a period of three months. C.O.C.P. No.167 of 2007 -2- Even that direction was not adhered to, forcing the petitioner to file this contempt petition. It was only when this Court vide order dated January 15, 2008 held the respondent, prima facie, guilty of flouting the Court's directions, that a cheque for Rs.26,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Asthal Bohar, was handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner on 1.2.2008. The matter was thereafter adjourned for today to enable the respondent to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- for which a demand draft No.791892 dated 18.2.2008 has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, contended that only after the intervention of this Court that the respondent has now refunded the security amount after a period of more than 10 years and that too after two rounds of litigation. It is argued that the refund of the security amount at this belated stage does not amount to purging the contempt. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the respondent never offered to refund the security amount until forced by this Court, it is a fit case for taking some harsh action against him. The manner in which firstly the students were duped by alluring them to seek admission in an institute which was not conforming to the standards of the Dental Council of India and thereafter refusing them refund of even their security amounts, undoubtedly calls for a serious view of the matter. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the security amount has since been paid to the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a cautious advice to C.O.C.P. No.167 of 2007 -3- the respondent to be careful in future, subject to his paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the petitioner, within a period of one month by way of demand draft. While a sum of Rs.10,000/- is being awarded to the petitioner towards litigation expenses, the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- is to compensate the petitioner for the loss of interest over the security amount. Rule discharged. February 25, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE