Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1285 (MAD)

R. Gowthami v. Regional Officer

2012-03-09

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2012
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) IN this writ petition the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent-college to refund a sum of Rs.1,87,550/- paid by the petitioner towards the tuition and other fees for 2nd, 3rd and 4th year with interest. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner is that after completing the higher secondary course, she got admission at the 4th respondent-college in B.E. (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) course during the academic year 2007-2008. THE petitioner had completed the first year course and she paid fees for the first year as required by the 4th respondent-college. She had also remitted a sum of Rs.81,550/- on various heads for the second year. While the petitioner was doing her second year, she got selected for M.B.B.S. course in the counselling conducted by the Directorate of Tamil Nadu Medical Education. Hence, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent and requested to issue the Transfer Certificate, so as to enable her to join M.B.B.S Course. THE 4th respondent- college demanded fees towards the 3rd and 4th years also for issuing the Transfer Certificate. THE petitioner having left with no other option, paid a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- on 03.10.2008 towards the course fees for 3rd and 4th years. THEreafter, the 4th respondent-college issued the Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. On verification from the Directorate of Technical Education under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent-college is not entitled to demand fees for 3rd and 4th years also, when the petitioner discontinued the course in second year. THErefore, she made a request to the 4th respondent-college to refund the fees of Rs.1,06,000/- paid towards the 3rd and 4th year. As there was no response from the 4th respondent- college, further representation was sent to the first respondent on 20.01.2009, seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent to refund the excess tuition fees collected from the petitioner. In spite of the said representation given by the petitioner, the 4th respondent did not refund the fees collected from the petitioner towards the 3rd and 4th year. THErefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 25.11.2009. On notice, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 entered appearance through their respective counsels. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit and additional affidavit. ( 3. THErefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 25.11.2009. On notice, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 entered appearance through their respective counsels. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit and additional affidavit. ( 3. ) IT is stated by the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent-college is a self financing institution and it has to run only on the tuition fees collected from the students. IT is stated by the 4th respondent that a committee was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for fixation of fees for private professional educational institutions and the said committee had also fixed the fees payable by the students admitted to the self financing engineering colleges, after taking into consideration of the financial difficulty in running the colleges and also after looking into the books of accounts and documents maintained by the colleges and also after hearing the representations of all concerned. Therefore, if any student leaves the institution in the middle of the II year, that seat will remain vacant and such vacancy will adversely affect the financial position of the college. IT is also stated by the 4th respondent that the second respondent had issued a circular dated 17.06.2000 with regard to the refund of tuition fees to candidate, who leaves the college within two months of joining the course. In the case of the petitioner, she had studied the whole I year and almost completed the 3rd semester in the II year and left the college on 03.10.2008. In the meantime, the last date for lateral entry admission to second year B.E., course was also over by 18.07.2008, as fixed by the second respondent. Therefore, it is submitted by the 4th respondent that one seat was vacant through out the 3rd and 4th years of the course as the petitioner left the college on 03.10.2008. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, collection of tuition fees for 3rd and 4th years from the petitioner is just and reasonable and the such collection is not illegal, as the college being the self financing institution has to run only on the tuition fees collected from the students. ( 4. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, collection of tuition fees for 3rd and 4th years from the petitioner is just and reasonable and the such collection is not illegal, as the college being the self financing institution has to run only on the tuition fees collected from the students. ( 4. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the fees collected by the 4th respondent-college is not according with any norms and when the petitioner had left the college in the 2nd year, the 4th respondent-college is not entitled to collect the fees from the petitioner towards 3rd and 4th years also. THE learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the college is not a commercial establishment and therefore, they cannot be permitted to collect the fees for the period not attended by the students. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the college to retain the money even in respect of the period not attended by the students, the 4th respondent-college is not justified in collecting the fees from the petitioner towards the 3rd and 4th years. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any contract to the contrary, the collection of the fees towards 3rd and 4th years are illegal. In support of his contention, he relied on decisions reported in (2002)10 SCC 487 in the matter Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru Engineering College vs. Sanjaykumar and (2011)8 MLJ 454 in the matter of Kesavan vs. Director of Medical Education. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respOndent has argued that the college is a self financing institutiOn and has to run Only On the fees collected from the students. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the 4th respOndent that the petitiOner had completed the first year course and also almost completed the 3rd semester in the secOnd year. When she left the college On 03.10.2008, the 4th respOndent-college was not in a positiOn to admit any student in that vacancy, as the last date for admissiOn to the secOnd year B.E., course through lateral entry system also was over by 18.07.2008. When she left the college On 03.10.2008, the 4th respOndent-college was not in a positiOn to admit any student in that vacancy, as the last date for admissiOn to the secOnd year B.E., course through lateral entry system also was over by 18.07.2008. Therefore, the said vacancy of One seat was lying all throughout the 3rd and 4th years of the course and cOnsequently, the college will have to suffer loss, if the said fees for the 3rd and 4th years is not collected from the petitiOner. ( 5. ) HEARD the learned counsels for the respective parties. ( 6. ) IN this case, the petitioner joined the 4th respondent-college during the academic year 2007-2008 in B.E.(EEE) course. After attending the course for first year and the 3rd semester in the second year, the petitioner had left the college on 03.10.2008 to join M.B.B.S. course. When the petitioner sought for Transfer Certificate, the 4th respondent-college insisted for payment of fees towards the 3rd and 4th years also. It is seen that the said fees towards 3rd and 4th years were paid by the petitioner on 03.10.2008. It is not stated by the petitioner anywhere in the affidavit or in her representation dated 15.12.2008 and 20.01.2009 that the petitioner had paid the fees towards 3rd and 4th years under protest. Therefore, it should be treated that the said payment was made by the petitioner after accepting the demand made by the 4th respondent-college for issuing the Transfer Certificate. After making the payment towards the 3rd and 4th years without any protest, the petitioner had subsequently, made the claim for refund after some time based on certain information obtained from the Directorate of Technical Education. As the petitioner had paid the fees without any protest and got the Transfer Certificate from the 4th respondent-college, in my considered view, she is estopped from claiming the refund of the said sum even assuming that the college is not entitled to collect the said fee. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner had left the college during the 3rd semester on 03.10.2008, but in the meantime, the last date for admission under the lapsed seat through lateral entry was also over on 18.07.2008, as could be seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of Technical Education, dated 25.06.2008. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner had left the college during the 3rd semester on 03.10.2008, but in the meantime, the last date for admission under the lapsed seat through lateral entry was also over on 18.07.2008, as could be seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of Technical Education, dated 25.06.2008. Consequently, the vacancy caused, due to the petitioner leaving the college of the 4th respondent, continued for the full course, namely, 3rd and 4th years also and therefore, the 4th respondent-college could not have been in a position to admit any other student in that vacancy. The 4th respondent-college is a self financing institution and is running only on the fees collected from the students. We must also see from their point of view that once a student is leaving in the middle of the course, the college will not be in a position to admit any student and consequently, the college undoubtedly will loose the revenue and in order to compensate such loss they have to collect the fees for the remaining years only from those students, who left the college in the middle of the course. By leaving the college in the middle of the course, the petitioner had not only prevented another person's chance in getting the admission into the B.E. course and also made the college to suffer the loss. Therefore, in my considered view, the 4th respondent- college is right in collecting the fees from the petitioner in respect of 3rd and 4th year and consequently, there is no illegality in such action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2002(10) SCC 487 (cited supra) and contended that once the admission is cancelled, the fees should be refunded to the students. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a student withdrew his admission within two months from the date of joining the course and thereafter, sought for refund of the tuition fee and the caution money paid by him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in the event of the admission being cancelled at the behest of either side, the caution money and tuition fee were liable to be refunded subject to the permissible deductions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that in the event of the admission being cancelled at the behest of either side, the caution money and tuition fee were liable to be refunded subject to the permissible deductions. On the other hand, in this case, the petitioner herein had joined the course and continued for 3 semesters and thereafter, left the college after obtaining Transfer Certificate, by paying the fees towards 3rd and 4th years, without any protest. Therefore, the facts are distinguishable between the case on hand and the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whether the college before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is a self financing college or aided college is also not known. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely on the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the same is factually distinguishable. ( 7. ) INSOFAR as the other case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2011(8) MLJ 454 (cited supra) is concerned, there also the facts are totally different and distinguishable. In that case, the college is a Government Dental College. Therefore, the learned Judge directed the respondents therein to issue Transfer Certificate and other +2 Mark Sheet to the petitioner therein, without insisting on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for discontinuing the studies. The learned Judge has also found that there was no agreement or bond between the petitioner and the college to indicate that the college therein to retain the certificate until the payment is made. As the college in the said case being the Tamil Nadu Government Dental College, the question of financial burden to the institution does not arise as the same is being run by the Government. But in this case, the 4th respondent is purely a self financing college depending upon the fees collected from the students. Consequently, the said judgement reported in 2011(8) MLJ 454 (cited supra) is also not factually applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11.In view of the above said discussion of facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.