Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 455 (KAR)

Anitha Kumari v. State of Karnataka

2010-04-01

H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

body2010
Judgment : 1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ to direct the second respondent to issue completion certificate to the petitioners, to direct the third respondent to issue No Due Certificate and further, to direct the third respondent to accept the Bank guarantee for the amount which the petitioners are due for excess fee paid by them and for other reliefs. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have completed the course in MBBS successfully. The petitioners intend to pursue their further studies in post-graduation in various faculties in medicine. For this purpose the petitioners require a No Due Certificate from third respondent and on production of that No Due Certificate the second respondent will issue the completion certificate. 3. It is seen from the record that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5655 of 2006 and Connected matters disposed on 9-11-2009 directed the third respondent to refund the excess fee collected by them to the petitioners. Aggrieved by this judgment in W.P.No.5655 of 2006, third respondent preferred a special leave petition before the Apex Court and the same is pending adjudication. When the matter stood at that stage the petitioners filed a contempt petition against the third respondent in CCC No.1025 of 2009. This contempt petition came to be disposed of on 8-3-2010 with an observation as under: “The Counsel for accused 6 submits that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 3-3-2010 they have notified on the notice boards of the hospital and college informing the complainants in this case to approach the office to furnish a Bank guarantee, so that, refund of fee may be collected in terms of the order. On the submission made by the learned Counsel for accused 6 that the said order is not complied with, the respondent was directed to be present before the Court. Today, learned Counsel for the complainants submits that the students are scattered and yet to be contacted. Till now the students have not approached the institution for furnishing the Bank guarantee. If only shows the callousness with which the contempt proceedings are prosecuted. The accused are ready to refund the fee on furnishing of Bank guarantee by the students. As the matter is pending before the Apex Court, no need to keep this matter pending on the Board. If only shows the callousness with which the contempt proceedings are prosecuted. The accused are ready to refund the fee on furnishing of Bank guarantee by the students. As the matter is pending before the Apex Court, no need to keep this matter pending on the Board. If the students furnish the Bank guarantee as directed by this Court, the institution still refund the fee subject to the result of the Apex Court. In those circumstances, the proceedings are dropped reserving liberty to the complainants to approach the Court if refund is not made on furnishing the Bank guarantee”. 4. After the disposal of contempt petition, the petitioners contend that they approached the third respondent-institution with a request to specify the quantum of amount to furnish the Bank guarantee and the third respondent has failed to furnish the same. Learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that there is no need for furnishing the figures by them and on the other hand the petitioners have to furnish Bank guarantee to the extent of amount that they are entitled. There is some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the third respondent. Therefore the petitioners have to furnish the Bank guarantee to the third respondent to the extent of the amount that they are entitled to from the third respondent. Initially the Bank guarantee shall be for a period of one year and within that period if the special leave petition filed by the third respondent is not disposed, then the Bank guarantee will have to be extended by the petitioners till the disposal of the special leave petition. On furnishing of the Bank guarantee by the petitioners, the third respondent to refund the excess fee to the extent of Bank guarantee. 5. Learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioners are due certain amounts. If that is so, the third respondent shall issue the No Due Certificate with a condition to claim the amounts from the petitioners. 6. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER i. Writ petitions are hereby disposed off. ii. Forthwith the third respondent shall issue a No Due Certificate to the petitioners with a condition that they are entitled to claim the amounts due by the petitioners. iii. On production of the No Due Certificate by the petitioners the second respondent is hereby directed to issue the completion certificates forthwith.