ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, President) - After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, and on specific query by us, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 informed the admission fee has to be paid by candidate like appellant only once in the Institute where he joins. In case he migrates or shifts to other college, the Institute to which he shifts, he is entitled to only pay the tuition fee and noting more. Further according, to him, the amount deposited by such a student by way of admission fee has got to be transferred by the Institute, to which the student migrates or shifts like the appellant in the present case. 2.Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 stated at the bar that if this interpretation is accepted it will lead to chaos because his client is running Institute and if it is made to refund the tuition fee it will be put to grave financial hardship because one seat would remain vacant, throughout session, therefore, he urged that no amount is refundable so far his client is concerned. In the alternative and without conceding, he further submitted that without in any manner giving up his earlier plea and/or conceding the claim of the appellant, he stated that his client is entitled to tuition fee for the Session which commenced from April, 2005 till the date the appellant left the Institute on migration to respondent No. 2. This submission according to us is well founded and needs to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 3.We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 is neither interested in appellant nor in respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It only discharges public duty as a functionary of the State Government by holding admission test and by counselling the candidates who intend to different courses in different institutions like respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we feel that, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed. In this behalf, it was conceded on behalf of respondent No. 1 that, a total sum of Rs. 9,900/- was deposited by the appellant. For the view that, we have taken hereinabove, respondent No. 1 is only entitled to fee for the months of April, 2005 to August, 2005 which works out to Rs. 4,000/-. After deducting, this amount, respondent No. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 5,900/- to the appellant. 9,900/- was deposited by the appellant. For the view that, we have taken hereinabove, respondent No. 1 is only entitled to fee for the months of April, 2005 to August, 2005 which works out to Rs. 4,000/-. After deducting, this amount, respondent No. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 5,900/- to the appellant. 5.At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 pointed out that a sum of Rs. 500/- already stands remitted to the respondent No. 4 as registration fee and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been refunded to the appellant. This position was not disputed on behalf of the appellant. This amount also needs to be reduced out of Rs. 5,900/-. Therefore, balance amount now payable works out to Rs. 4,400/-. 6.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing the appeal, it is ordered that, respondent No. 1 shall remit a sum of Rs. 4,400/- to the appellant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 2.11.2006 till the date of payment, leaving the parties to bear own costs. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of costs as per Rules. Appeal partly allowed. M.R.B. ———————