Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 874 (MP)

Manoj Modi v. State of M. P.

2007-08-09

A.K.PATNAIK, AJIT SINGH

body2007
ORDER Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. The petitioner appeared in the common entrance examination, D-MAT 2006, conducted by the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No.3, and on the basis of his performance in the said entrance examination he was offered admission in the R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that when he went to respondent No. 4/College for admission, he was asked to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lac within a period of 24 hours or latest by 26th September, 2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid demand by respondent No. 4/College for bank guarantee the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. On 28.9.2006, the Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, issued notice to respondents No.3 and 4 and directed as an interim measure that they will give admission to the petitioner in respondent No. 4/College by 30.9.2006 without insisting upon a bank guarantee, if he was entitled to such admission on the basis of his merit and that such admission would be subject to result of the writ petition. Pursuant to the order dated 28.9.2006 of this Court, the petitioner has been given admission in respondent No. 4/-College. 3. Hence, the only question that remains to be decided in this writ petition is whether the respondent No. 4/College could insist for a bank guarantee from the petitioner at the time of his admission. 4. In Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others [ (2003) 6 SCC 697 ] a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the question whether a bank guarantee could be insisted upon by an institution from a student and Para 8 of the judgment at page 722 of the Supreme Court Cases, the Supreme Court held that if an institution feels that any particular student may leave the course in midstream then it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institution even if the student left the course in midstream. 5. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case. 5. Mr. Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case. hank guarantee was insisted upon from the petitioner by respondent No. 4/ College without any assessment that the petitioner may leave the course, to which he has been admitted, in midstream and, therefore, the demand of bank guarantee by respondent No. 4/College from the petitioner was not in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others (supra). 6. Mr. Satish Sharma, appearing for respondents No.3 and 4, submitted that in the brochure published by the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh for admissions in the year 2006, it is mentioned that the College will have the authority to ask a candidate to deposit the bank guarantee if a college feels that certain candidate may leave the course in midstream. 7. The provision in the brochure is in accord with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academic of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others (supra) but the demand by the respondent No. 4/College from the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee at the time of admission without an assessment whether the petitioner would leave the course midstream is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others (supra) and the brochure published by the Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No.3. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the demand made by the respondent No. 4/College from the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee.