JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner seeks return of his fee and other charges amounting to Rs.97,500/- as he has discontinued from P.G.D.M. Course and has taken admission in the MBA course of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. 2. On 12.4.2010, the petitioner obtained admission in Apee Jay Svran Institution of Management, Rama Mandi, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar. On demand, he deposited a sum of Rs.97,500/- by way of bank draft as fee. The petitioner had also applied for admission to the MBA Course at Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, where he was also granted admission. The petitioner visited respondent No.3-Institution and requested for refund of fee. Despite assurance, respondent No.3 did not refund the fee. 3. As averred in the petition, respondent No.3 had started P.G.D.M. Course having 60 seats. As per the petitioner, the response to the said course was very poor and 5 to 6 students opted out of this course. Initially also, only 11 students had been admitted to this course, out of which 5 to 6 have already withdrawn. The petitioner accordingly would plead that the plea of seats having remained vacant after it being left by the petitioner would be meaningless in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner states that he belongs to very poor family and his parents have deposited this huge sum of fee after stretching their resources and can not bear this heavy loss. He has accordingly filed this petition to seek refund of his fee. 4. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the deposit of fee by the petitioner amounting to Rs.97,500/- is admitted. It is further admitted that the petitioner had informed the answering College about his selection in the MBA Course but the averment that the petitioner was assured about refund of his fee is denied. Reference is then made to instructions issued by AICTE to their communication dated 6.2.2009, regulating the refund of fee, which are as under:- “In the event of a student/candidate withdrawing before the starting of the courses, the wait listed candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the Institution to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), shall be refunded and returned by the Institution to the student/candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions to retain the School/Institution Leaving Certificate in original. Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently. Falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate rent, wherever applicable.” 5. It is thereafter mentioned that out of 60 seats allotted by AICTE to the answering Institute, only 11 students could be admitted and at present only 7 students are pursuing the said course. The representation of the petitioner was statedly received on 11.8.2010, much after the course had begun and the seat so vacated by the petitioner remained unfilled. Referring to the Rules quoted above, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of amount. 6. Reference is also made to the provisions in the prospectus, which provides that if a student withdraws before or after start of course and the seat vacated by the student is filled by the Institution, part of the fee will be refunded as per the AICTE Rules but where the seat remained vacant and not filled by the last date of admission, the student shall not be entitled to get refund from the institution and rather shall be obliged to pay the full fee for the entire tenure of the course. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner is disputed and declined on this ground. 7. In support of the submission, counsel for the respondent Institution has also relied upon some decisions of this Court like Civil Writ Petition No.6981 of 2009 (Harshdeep Singh Vs. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Village Bhaddal, District Ropar through its Managing Director and others) decided on 4.2.2010 and Civil Writ Petition No.18169 of 2010 (Sugandha Magu Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 18.1.2012. 8. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Village Bhaddal, District Ropar through its Managing Director and others) decided on 4.2.2010 and Civil Writ Petition No.18169 of 2010 (Sugandha Magu Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 18.1.2012. 8. No doubt, the provisions made in the AICTE regulations and those of the prospectus may tend to help the cause of the respondent Institute but the facts in this case are peculiar and in my view, it would be unfair to fully apply the effect of these instructions to the fact situation in this case. As per the AICTE norms, on a student withdrawing from a course, wait listed candidate should be given admission against the vacant seat. In that event the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- is required to be refunded and returned by the Institution to the student or the candidate withdrawing from the programme. There is a further bar for the Institution to retain the school/Institution leaving certificate in original. This provision then states that should a student leave after joining the course and the seat remains vacant, then the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deduction of monthly fee and proportionate rent, whichever is applicable. It would, thus, be seen that this rule does not entitle an Institution to decline the refund of fee in both the events, where the student leaves and the seat remained unfilled or where the seat vacated by the student is filled from the students in waiting list. In the first eventuality, the Institution can deduct proportionate monthly fee and some rent etc. but in the later case it has no option but to refund the entire fee. Thus, this rule does not entitle the Institution to retain the fee, which is charged, when the student vacates the seat after taking admission, even if the seat remains unfilled. The provision made in the prospectus can not override the instructions issued by the AICTE and this provision in the prospectus, thus, can not be pleaded to justify their stand by the respondents. 9. Even otherwise, the seat remaining vacant in this Institution in the course where the petitioner took admission appears meaningless. Against the 60 allotted seats to this Institution by AICTE, only 11 students had joined the course, out of which four concededly have left. 9. Even otherwise, the seat remaining vacant in this Institution in the course where the petitioner took admission appears meaningless. Against the 60 allotted seats to this Institution by AICTE, only 11 students had joined the course, out of which four concededly have left. Only 7 students are pursuing this course against 60 seats allotted to this Institution. What significance of a seat remaining vacant would have in this case where as many as 49 of the total seats allotted are not filled and at present 53 seats are lying vacant. Not only his seat but large number of seats, as many as 53, have remained unfilled. In this background, the Institution in my view would be unfair in pressing this plea to retain the fee deposited by the petitioner. One could have considered this line of submission as pursued by counsel for the respondents, if only the seat vacated by the petitioner had remained unfilled or even to some extent 2 or 3 seats had so gone waste because of late vacation of seats by some students. This Institution, which is allotted 60 seats, is running this course with 7 students and the action of the petitioner in vacating the seat, which has remained unfilled is of no significance. 10. No doubt, this Court in the case of Harshdeep Singh (supra), after relying on the similar provision in the prospectus, has held that seat remaining vacant, would not entitle a student to the refund of the fee but the position as is in the present case was not under consideration before the Court and the Court also did not look into the effect of the provisions and instructions issued by the AICTE. The ratio of law laid down in this case, therefore, would not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. 11. In the case of Sugandha Magu (supra), the Court has dealt with a provision, which was regulating the refund, which is differently worded. In this case, the Court considered the provision governing the refund of fee, where no fee was to be refunded if the candidate withdrew his or her admission after 15.9.2009. Finding that the student had withdrawn from the course on 1.10.2009 and the classes had actually started on 24.9.2009 and that the seat, which was vacated was never filled, this Court declined the claim of the petitioner therein for refund of fee. Finding that the student had withdrawn from the course on 1.10.2009 and the classes had actually started on 24.9.2009 and that the seat, which was vacated was never filled, this Court declined the claim of the petitioner therein for refund of fee. The ratio of law in this case also would not apply to the facts of the present case. 12. Even the view taken in Civil Writ Petition No.12267 of 2010 (Nikhil Sheokand Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 24.1.2012, may not strictly apply to the facts of the present case, as one odd seat vacated by the petitioner had remained vacant. The prayer for refund was so declined. The seat remaining vacant in this case as already noticed, would not have much significance because as many as 53 seats had remained unfilled. The seat so vacated would show that there is hardly any effect of vacation of seat by the petitioner, as it will hardly make any difference to overall intake to this course. In Civil Writ Petition No.13308 of 2009 (Sh. Atam Parkash Khatter and another Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others, decided on 21.7.2010 and Civil Writ Petition No.20339 of 2008 (Meenu Kaur Vs. Shri Guru Ramdass Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Amritsar & another) decided on 19.11.2010, the direction to refund of fee has been issued by this Court. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, a case for refund of fee deposited by the petitioner is made out. However, the respondents shall be entitled to deduct the proportionate fee for the months for which the petitioner had remained on the roll before he asked for refund and, therefore, has discontinued the course. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.