JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief’s:- (i) To issue a writ of mandamus for any other appropriate writ order or direction. Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return the original SSLC certificate and the Higher Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner and also issue to the petitioner conduct certificate and transfer certificate forthwith and within a stipulated time period as may be stipulated by this Honourable Court; (ii) Grant to the petitioner such other for further relief’s as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner joined B.B.A.LL.B course in the 1st respondent college in the year 2018-19 and has remitted the admission fee and other tuition fee for the 1st semester as demanded by the 1st respondent. However, later petitioner faced with some mental disorders and was under treatment in a hospital at Calicut. After the inpatient treatment, treatment continues even now as an outpatient and the doctor has advised that he should not continue the course, since the petitioner may not be able to bear the tension and stress, which may even upset his mental balance. However, the doctor had advised him to join any other higher studies with light curricula so as to make himself engaged. Therefore the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to return the original SSLC certificate, Higher Secondary certificate submitted at the time of admission, and also the conduct certificate and transfer certificate so as to enable him to pursue his higher studies. Having refused to do so, petitioner's father has caused to issue a lawyer notice, to which it was replied that petitioner should pay the entire fees and continue his studies. However it is not stated there under whether the certificates will be issued as is sought for by the petitioner. It is thus seeking the directions specified above, this writ petition is filed. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent refuting all the allegations raised by the petitioner and also contending that the 1st respondent is at liberty to detain the certificate till the petitioner makes refund or adjustment of fees in accordance with the provisions contained under Ext. R1(b) prospectus for admission to Law degree course for the year 2018-19. R1(b) prospectus for admission to Law degree course for the year 2018-19. Therefore the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the 1st respondent is that, since the petitioner has undertaken the course taking note of the stipulations contained under Ext.R1(b), petitioner is liable to comply with whatever situations contained in Ext.R1(b), and therefore there is no manner of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the 1st respondent in not releasing the certificate to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, the writ petition against the 1st respondent is not maintainable under law, not being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.Chandrasekhar and learned senior counsel Sri. George Poonthottam assisted by Adv. Nisha George appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the pleadings and documents on record. It is true, as per Clause 9 of Ext.R1(b), stipulations are contained in the following manner. “No request to refund of fees received will be entertained after the commencement of classes. If any candidate discontinues the course or leaves the institution after closing date of admission he/she is liable to pay the fees for the entire duration of the course. In all such cases Transfer Certificate and other certificates will be issued only after payment of liquidated damages”. 5. The point is raised by learned senior counsel relying upon the said provisions. However the question with respect to the release of the certificate viz-a-viz the liquidated damages was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.C No.1275 of 2017 and has rendered a judgment dated 20.02.2017 holding that the detention of certificates and other documents is a clear violation of fundamental rights disabling the students to undergo the course of their choice in any other institution. I am in respectful agreement with the proposition of law laid down by learned single Judge in the aforesaid judgment. In my considered view, the certificates are submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent during the admission process, and the same is retained by the 1st respondent or the principal as a trustee of the student, and the said documents cannot be detained as a coercive method to secure any liquidated damages, as is stated in the prospectus. In my considered view, the certificates are submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent during the admission process, and the same is retained by the 1st respondent or the principal as a trustee of the student, and the said documents cannot be detained as a coercive method to secure any liquidated damages, as is stated in the prospectus. So much so, such documents cannot be treated as any security, guarantee, charge or lien enabling respondents 1 to 3 to retain them overlooking the request made. Moreover, respondents have got equally efficacious remedy to seek recovery of any amount due resorting to Civil remedy. In that view of the matter, the action on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 can only be viewed antithesis to rule of law. Appreciating the circumstances so, Clause 9 quoted above, so far as enabling the 1st respondent to detain the documents as a coercive method to recover the liquidated damages is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of the India, interfering with the fundamental rights of the student to pursue his studies in accordance with his wishes, in order to practice any profession, or as to carry on any occupation, trade or business, and life and personal liberty. 6. The situations discussed above also make it clear that, the challenge made against the deliberate action of respondents 1 to 3, being interference with rights conferred by part III of the Constitution, petitioner is entitled as of right to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart respondents 1 to 3 are discharging public duty by rendering education to the needy on the basis of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and therefore comes within the realm of “any person” or “authority” prescribed there under. Therefore there is no sustenance for the argument that, writ petition against respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable under law. In that view of the matter looking from any angle the action of respondents are arbitrary and illegal liable to be interfered exercising the power of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Therefore there is no sustenance for the argument that, writ petition against respondents 1 to 3 is not maintainable under law. In that view of the matter looking from any angle the action of respondents are arbitrary and illegal liable to be interfered exercising the power of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to release/issue all the certificates to the petitioner as sought for at the earliest possible and at any rate within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which appropriate action shall be taken by the 4th respondent in accordance with law. But, I leave open the remedy of respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the petitioner for recovering any liquidated damages in accordance with law.