Judgment : K.M. Joseph, J 1. Appellant is the Writ Petitioner. Learned Single Judge while granting admission has passed the impugned order, which order reads as follows : "Admit. Issue urgent notice. There will be an interim order to release all the documents collected from the petitioner at the time of admission subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee for the requisite amount, forthwith. The respondents are directed to file a detailed counter affidavit, also producing copies of the relevant documents to sustain their action with regard to detention of the documents." 2. Very briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows : "The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant inter alia for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release the original documents/mark lists detained by them and other belongings to her, as evidenced by Ext.P3. It is respectfully submitted that, the appellant joined the 1st respondent College for Post Graduation Diploma Programme in Management (PGDPM) Course, of 2 years duration in July, 2013, after remitting the required fee towards tuition fee and other expenses as evidenced by Exhibit P2, after completing her BBA. The appellant also submitted the original certificates/mark lists of her degree mark lists, entrance score card-MAT etc. at the time of taking admission in the 1st respondent College, as evidenced by Exhibit P3. The classes of PGDPM Course in the 1st respondent College commenced on 29.7.2013 and the appellant attended the classes up to 23.8.2013. But unfortunately, she could not further continue attending the classes due to ill health because of the hectic schedule of the classes, seminars etc. On submitting Exhibit P5 request dated 3.9.2013 through email before the 1st respondent, requesting to give back the original documents/mark lists as well as the fee which she already remitted, appellant received Exhibit P4 communication dated 20.9.2013 from the 2nd respondent, intimating that only on remittance of the entire fee for the course to the tune of . 5,50,000/-, she would be relieved from the institution. The belongings of the appellant which were kept in the students' hostel attached to the 1st respondent College were also illegally detained by them stating that, only after remittance of the entire fee for the entire extent of the course, the same would be released. 5,50,000/-, she would be relieved from the institution. The belongings of the appellant which were kept in the students' hostel attached to the 1st respondent College were also illegally detained by them stating that, only after remittance of the entire fee for the entire extent of the course, the same would be released. The entrance examination for MBA course for which the appellant proposed to join was scheduled on 12.10.2013 and soon thereafter, the appellant would have to produce all the documents/mark lists so as to take admission to the said course. It was in the said circumstances, the appellant filed Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, inter alia contending that the demand of the entire fee applicable to the course as liquidated damages in Exhibit P-4, for return of documents/mark lists, is illegal and highly arbitrary. As per the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to release all the documents collected from the appellant at the time of admission, subject to furnishing bank guarantee for the requisite amount, forthwith. It is respectfully submitted that the condition imposed to furnish bank guarantee for the requisite amount for release of the documents, in the interim order impugned, is liable to be set aside. Being a student, the appellant will not be able to arrange for furnishing bank guarantee, as directed by this Hon'ble court in the interim order impugned. Hence this Writ Appeal." 3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. We are of the view that the impugned decision is an interim order. We do not think that we should entertain the appeal against an interim order, impugned in this case. 5. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no authority with the respondent to withhold the documents which are entrusted by the student for getting registered with the university. He would also submit that the appellant is prepared to execute bond instead of bank guarantee. We think that we need not entertain the appeal on the ground that the appeal is against an interim order. We dismiss the Writ appeal. However, we would request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the Writ Petition at the earliest.