IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1078 of 2010 (M/S) Naveen Singh, S/O Late Shri Padam Singh, R/O Kusumkhera Shiv Vihar-2, P.O. Haripur Nayak, Haldwani, District Nainital. …Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary (Higher Education) Uttarakhand Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Registrar, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal. 3. Director, Higher Education, Near Mahila Degree College, Nawabi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. 4. Principal, Government Degree College, Dakpathar, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. … Respondents. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Shah, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Date June 30, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to refund the course fee of Rs. 28,400/- deposited by the petitioner for the B.Ed. programme. According to the petitioner, the petitioner bearing Roll No. 286132 was selected on the basis of merit for self-financed programme of B.Ed. course at Government Degree College Dakpathar, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun affiliated to H.N.B. Garhwal University. The petitioner has annexed copy of admission letter dated 28-1-2009 as Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner consequently took admission in Education Department, Government Degree College, Dakpathar, Vikas Nagar and deposited the requisite fee for the said course. Details of deposits made by the petitioner have been mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the petition. However, the petitioner was forced to leave the B.Ed. course just after about 1,1/2 month. Accordingly, the petitioner 2 made a request to the Registrar of the University for refund of the fee deposited by him by letter dated 4-4-2009. It is also alleged that the Principal of the college concerned gave an assurance to do the needful in the matter, but nothing was done, rather the Public Information Officer of the University by his letter dated 26-12-2009 informed the petitioner that there is no such policy for refund of fee deposited by the petitioner, which gave rise to the present writ petition. From a perusal of the material placed before this Court, it appears that there are disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner is at fault or the respondent no.4 is at fault, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since disputed question of fact are involved in the present writ petition, I am inclined to entertain the petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a civil suit for seeking refund of the fee in question, if so advised. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP