Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2206 (MAD)

J. S. Arunkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

2015-06-10

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2015
Judgment :- Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner enrolled himself for five years B.A.B.L. Degree Course with the Government Law College, Chengalpattu/respondent No.3 for the academic years 2004-2009. Third respondent's College was affiliated to Dr.Ambedkar Law University/respondent No.2. It is, thus, the say of the petitioner that at the time of his admission in the first year in 2004, respondent No.3 had collected a sum of Rs.17,125/- towards admission, including Rs.10,000/- as tuition fees. The fee was also paid for the second year, which is 2005-2006. Third respondent's College was brought under the control of the Government during the academic year 2006-2007 and from then onwards, third respondent's College collected the fee prescribed for other Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu. 2. Case of the petitioner is for refund of the fee paid in the academic years 2004-2006 based on G.O.Ms.No.722, Social Welfare Department, dated 13.10.1977. In terms of Clause (2) of the Government Order, the decision of the Government inter alia is not to collect the tuition fees from the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Converts therefrom regardless of the income of their parents from that academic year. It is, thus, the submission of the petitioner that he is entitled to refund of the fee. 3. On a query, the learned Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Dr.Ambedkar Law University are, ad idem on the issue, that the Government Order dated 13.10.1977 would apply even during period when the College partakes the character of self-financing institution under the ageis of the University. Thus, it is not in dispute that the Government Order dated 13.10.1977 would apply to the petitioner. 4. It is, however, the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the fee received from different candidates for the academic years 2004-2006 was refunded on account of the excess fee paid being a sum of Rs.8,58,450/-. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that this was the amount of refund in respect of the candidates whose names were furnished, but the name of the petitioner was not found in the list for the reason that the petitioner had not at that stage filed the writ petition when the refund was made vide letter dated 23.08.2007 and since the writ petition was filed later, the amount has not been refunded. 5. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, there can be little doubt that the petitioner would be entitled to refund from respondent No.2. We are also of the view that in order to avoid any future litigation, any of the persons who have studied in the academic years 2004-2006 in third respondent's College and are from the exempted categories, may directly apply to respondent No.2/Dr. Ambedkar Law University and on verification that they had studied, the amount be refunded. 6. We, thus, issue dual directions as under:- (i) The petitioner be refunded the amount for the academic years 2004-2006 by respondent No.2/Dr. Ambedkar Law University, as done in the earlier cases within a period of two (2) months from today. (ii) The other candidates who may also be entitled for such refund, subject to their establishment of eligibility, may directly apply to respondent No.2/respondent No.3 for such refund and need not be required to approach this Court. 7. The writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.