JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing 1st and 2nd respondents to return the entire dues of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) due to the petitioner in view of withdrawal from the course. 2. In support of the petition, it is pleaded, that in the counselling held on 26.06.2007, the petitioner was admitted in B.Tech (EEE) Degree course under single window system vide admission No.50 of 2007. In pursuance to the admission, the petitioner joined the course on 20.07.2007. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) towards counselling and admission fees, Rs.33,850/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty only) towards college fee under various heads and another sum of Rs.4,600/- (Rupees Four Thousand and Six Hundred only) towards hostel fees. The amount was paid on 18.07.2007. 3. It is submitted, that the 1st respondent had started admitting students even before commencement of the counselling for courses by the Anna University. It was on account of this, that the petitioner chose to join the course with the 1st respondent university. 4. It is further submitted, that the petitioner subsequently was selected for admission to Anna University and got admission at Bannariamman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam in pursuance to the counselling conducted by the Anna University on 02.08.2007. The petitioner accordingly requested the 1st respondent university to allow him to withdraw his admission to join Anna University. 5. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner stayed in hostel for few days and after the classes commenced, the petitioner opted to leave the institution, and accordingly made request to the respondents to return his original certificates, so as to enable him to join B.E. Civil courses at Sathyamangalam. 6. It is the case of the petitioner, that while returning the original certificate, the 1st and 2nd respondents did not return the fee deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore sought refund of the entire fee collected from him after deducting the processing fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in view of the instruction of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which reads as under: "In the event of a student / candidate withdrawing before the starting of the course, the wait listed candidates should be given admissions against the vacant seat. The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the process fee of not more than Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution / University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme. It would not be permissible for institutions and universities to retain the School / Institution Leaving certificates in original. Should a student have 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 hostel rent, where applicable. Any violation of instructions issued by the AICTE shall call for punitive action including withdrawal of approval and recognition of erring institutions and Universities. AICTE shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions." 7. It is submitted, that this public notice was issued in exercise of power conferred with AICTE under Section 10(n) of the AICTE Act. The father of petitioner made a representation dated 11.08.2008 asking for refund of entire amount, after deducting sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). 8. In pursuance to the representation sent by the father of petitioner, the respondents refunded a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and refused to refund the balance amount. 9. The reply by the 1st respondent in response to the representation of the petitioner, reads as under: "Grams: FARMVAR Phone Office: 0422-6611201 Telefax: 091-0422-2431821 Direct: 0422-2431821 Email: registrar @tnau.ac.in Res: 0422-6544080 TAMIL NADU AGRICULATURAL UNIVERSITY Dr. P. Santhana Krishnan, Ph.D., Coimbatore – 641 003 Registrar Tamil Nadu, India No.: L.2/Misc./2007 Dated: 19.10.2007 To Lr.K.R.ANNAAMALAI, F/o.A.Arun – BTG.07-007, 'Anandam' – K.K.K.Gardens, D.G.Pudur Post, Sathyamangalam Taluk – 638 503. Sir, Sub: Legal Notice – Notice issued demanding of fee remitted by Th.A.Arun on admission to B.Tech. (EEE) Course during the year 2007-08-requested-reg. Ref: 1. Your Lr. No. Nil dated 11.08.2007 I have examined your legal notice (ref.1) and furnish my reply. I wish to inform that Th.A.Arun, S/o.Lr.K.R. ANNAAMALAI was admitted in B. Tech (EEE) Degree course on 26.06.2007 under Single Window System. He joined and registered the course on 20.07.2007. He was also admitted in the Hostel. The course commenced on 23.07.2007. Your Lr. No. Nil dated 11.08.2007 I have examined your legal notice (ref.1) and furnish my reply. I wish to inform that Th.A.Arun, S/o.Lr.K.R. ANNAAMALAI was admitted in B. Tech (EEE) Degree course on 26.06.2007 under Single Window System. He joined and registered the course on 20.07.2007. He was also admitted in the Hostel. The course commenced on 23.07.2007. He discontinued the course on 06.08.2007, since he got admission in Anna University Counseling. According to the Rules in force in this University, the candidates who discontinued the courses are not eligible for refund of any other fee except caution money deposit. The said rules have already been prescribed in the Information Brochure issued along with the application form. Further, the cost of Blazer Uniform and Caution Money Deposit collected from the student is also refundable if he applies for refund within 30 days. Under the above circumstances, the sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) has been refunded in Demand Draft No.294024 dt. 11.09.2007 of State Bank of India, TNAU Branch, Coimbatore towards the Refund of Caution Money Deposit of Rs.2,500/-and Blazer Uniform fees of Rs.1,500/- and the D.D. has been sent by Registered Post on 12.09.2007. Since he has stayed in the Hostel from 20.07.2007 to 06.08.2007, the Mess and other charges have bee adjusted in the Hostel deposit, duly withholding the non-refundable fee and charges and the balance amount of Rs.1, 871/- has been refunded from Hostel Office on 12.10.2007. Thus the eligible amount has been refunded. Hence, the representation of the petitioner to refund the entire fee cannot be complied with. Sd/- REGISTRAR" 10. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged the order passed by the The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in rejecting the request for refund and has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to refund the amount. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the action of the respondents in refusing to refund the entire amount, is totally arbitrary, therefore volatile of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it goes against the basic object of setting up of educational institution, i.e., charitable purpose. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the action of the respondents in refusing to refund the entire amount, is totally arbitrary, therefore volatile of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it goes against the basic object of setting up of educational institution, i.e., charitable purpose. That in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inamdar vs. State of Maharastra, 2005 (4) CTC 81, an educational institution cannot resort to profiting, whereas forfeiture of deposited fee amounts to profiting. 12. This judgment has no application to lis in this case, as it deals with laying of fee structure etc and not for refund of tuition fee deposited for admission. 13. On consideration, I find that there is no force in this writ petition. The public notice on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not advance the case of petitioner. The AICTE has directed refund of fee before closure of admission, clearly stipulating that the seat so vacated is to be offered to the person in the waiting list, whereas the petitioner is seeking refund of fee after closure of admission, that too after attending the classes for few days. 14. In this case, the petitioner admittedly joined the course and left it in between in view of his admission with Anna University. 15. The petitioner has also not challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent in declining the request of petitioner for refund of money. 16. The reading of the order dated 19.10.2007 shows, that rules with regard to fund of fee were part of information brochure, i.e. prospectus. It is now well settled law, that the prospectus has force of law and that the institution as well as student is bound by the prospectus for admission. 17. Once the amount is not refundable in terms of the prospectus issued for admission, it does not lie in the mouth of petitioner to claim refund after joining the course. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the public notice, as in the public notice, the liberty was given only to approach AICTE with the grievances. 18. The public notice cannot override the provisions of the prospectus issued for admission, having force of law. 19. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.