IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25370 of 2003 Between: 1 B.Anand S/o.B.Kodanda Reddy R/o.H.No.17-1-391/s/572 Singareni Colony, Saidabad Hyderbad 2 P.Arun S/o. P.subbararayudu R/o.H.No.17-1-391/s/572 Singareni Colony, Saidabad Hyderbad 3 V.Vijetha D/o. V.Bala Prasad C/o. Dr.B.Jhansi Laxmi Bai Sri Chaitanya Mahila Kalashala Poranki, Vijayawada-521137 4 C.Priyanka D/o. C.Srinivas R/o. H.No.13-2-132 Jyothi Colony,Matwada Warangal- 506002 5 T.Divyagna D/o. T.C.M.Prasad R/o. Master Sai Apartments-8 Behind Red Rose Restaurant Sangeeta Nagar,Somajiguda Hyderabad-500082 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 NTR University of health Sciences rep.by its Registrar, Vijayawada-520008,A.P. 2 The Principal, Mamatha Medical College, under the Management of Mamatha Educational Society 4-2-161, Opp:Rotary Nagar Khammam-507002 3 The Principal MNR Medical College,Sangareddy,Medak District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction and more particulalry one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st Respondent in taking steps to see that the 2nd Respondent refunds Rs.64,500/- (Rupees Sixty four Thousand Five Hundred only) paid by the petitioners to the 2nd Respondent and the action of the 2nd respondent in not refunding the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consitution of India and to issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to refund an amount of Rs.64,500/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Five hundred Only) to each of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.BRIZ MOHAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25370 of 2003 ORDER: The five petitioners appeared for Engineering And Medical Common Entrance Test (EAMCET) (Medical) Examination, 2001. In ﬁrst instance they could not be selected in open category seats. Therefore, they obtained admission in second respondent college under management quota duly paying Rs.1,29,000/- each towards fee. Subsequent thereto they are fortunate to get free seats. This time they got admission in third respondent college. Due to this second respondent college on their own refunded half of the fee, being Rs.64,500/- each to the petitioners and the remaining half was not refunded. The petitioners sought redressal with ﬁrst respondent university and also made a representation to second respondent college, in vain. Hence, they ﬁled instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing ﬁrst respondent university to take necessary steps to compel second respondent college to refund balance of Rs.64,500/- each to the petitioners. The petitioners on their own volition paid Rs.1,29,000/- being the fee prescribed by second respondent college for getting admission for medical seats under management quota. The admission of the students insofar as management quota is concerned is between the petitioners and second respondent college and both the parties are bound by the instructions agreed to at the time of admission. Whatever be the reason, second respondent college refunded half of the fee i.e., Rs.64,500/- each to the petitioners, when they got admission in third respondent college against free seats. No rule or regulation is brought to the notice of this Court which requires second respondent college to refund the entire fee. Similarly any rule or regulation empowering a university to take action against recognised/aﬃliated medical college when the fee is not refunded has not been brought to the notice of this Court. In the absence of any statutory power vested in the university, this Court cannot issue a Mandamus which would amount to giving Mandamus to ﬁrst respondent university, a public authority, to act contrary to law. If so advised, the petitioners may approach second respondent college itself for necessary refund of fee. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20th October, 2008 GHN To 1 District Collector, Visakhapatnam District Visakhapatnam. 2 Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Madugula (M) Visakhapatnam District. 5 2CCs to GP for Civil Supplies 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL}