1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6935 OF 2010 Madhuri d/o. Satish Malshette ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Rajvaidya, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing the respondent No. 4 to refund the fees received by it from petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had requested for cancellation of his admission with respondent No. 4 so as to take admission in the other college. It is, therefore, submitted that respondent No. 4 could not have withheld the fees taken from her. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 relying on the Rule 7.9 of Rules framed by the Government states that if the request for cancellation of admission is received before/after start of 2 academic session and the seat could not be filled by the Institute, no refund is permissible. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 makes a categorical statement that the application for cancellation of admission is submitted on the very last date of the admission i.e. 17th September 2009 and as such, the respondent No. 4 could not fill up the seat which remained vacant on the cancellation of admission by the petitioner. The learned counsel further states that so far as building development fund of Rs. 5230/- and bus pass of of Rs. 3000/- is concerned, respondent No. 4 is willing to refund the same. In so far as the amount of Rs. 8230/- towards building development fees and bus pass fees is concerned, the respondent No. 4 shall refund the same by cross cheque in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 5. Perusal of Rule 7.9 would reveal that if the admission is cancelled before/after start of academic session and the seat could not be filled by the institute, refund of amount is not permissible. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp6935.10