Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund Rs. 2.26 lacs deposited by him as fee for admission against the seat of NRI quota. 2. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner appeared in Common Entrance Test-2000 conducted by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (for short, the University) but failed to qualify the same. He was, however, offered admission under NRI quota. He accepted the same and deposited Rs. 2.26 lacs as fee. In September, 2000, he appeared for second counseling in pursuance of advertisement Annexure P.3 issued by Registrar of the University and got admission against the free seat subject to the condition of depositing fee as a fresh candidate. Accordingly, he deposited Rs. 42,665/-. Thereafter, he sent representation dated 6.10.2000 for refund of the fee deposited for admission under NRI quota but failed to evoke favourable response. His contention is that after having allotted free seat to him, the respondents cannot retain the fee deposited by him for taking admission under NRI quota. 3. In the written statement filed on behalf f respondent No. !. An objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that being a private unaided college, respondent No. 1 does not fall within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On merits, it has been averred that the petitioner cannot seek refund of the fee in view of the specific provision to the contrary contained in the prospectus issued by the University. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was not even eligible to be admitted against the free seat because he had failed to qualify in Common Entrance Test. 4. The petitioner has filed replication. He has contested the objection raised by respondent No. 1 to the maintainability of the writ petition and averred that in view of the judgment of five-Judges Bench in Ravneet Kaur v.The Christian Medical College, ludhiana, 1997(3) R.S.J. 676, respondent No. 1 must be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12. On merits, it has reiterated the plea for refund by contending that the respondents cannot retain the amount deposited by him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On merits, it has reiterated the plea for refund by contending that the respondents cannot retain the amount deposited by him. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition because we are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to get relief in terms of the prayer made. It is settled law that provisions contained in the prospectus issued by the University are binding on the parties and the Court cannot issue direction which may result in violation thereof-Amardeep Singh Sahota v. Maharshi Dayanand University, (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 32: Sachin Gaur v. Punjabi University, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 39: Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and Ors., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 13 and Saroj Rani v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1996(2) R.S.J. 686. 6. The petitioner has neither controverted the assertion contained in the written statement of respondent No. I that as per the prospectus issued by the University tuition fee and charges deposited at the time of admission are not refundable nor he has challenged the legality of that provision. Therefore, in the face of the prohibition contained in the prospectus against the refund of fee deposited at the time of admission, the Court cannot issue a mandamus to the respondents for refund of fee to the petitioner. 7. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that the admission of the petitioner against the free seat made allegedly on the basis of second counselling held in pursuance of Annexure P3 is shrouded with mystery because it is an admitted position that he had failed to qualify in the entrance test conducted by the University. However, we do not want to further dilate on the issue because his admission is not under challenge before us. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.