JUDGMENT : V.G.ARUN, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.39274 of 2015 is a Private Self-financing Engineering College. The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P15 order by which the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges (for short “the Committee”) directed refund of an amount of Rs.2,67,600/-collected from the third respondent towards tuition fee and liquidated damages. W.P.(C) No.5604of 2016 is filed by the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.39274 of2015 seeking implementation of the order for refund issued by the Committee. The parties and the Exhibits are referred to as in W.P.(C) No.39274 of 2015. 2. The third respondent had joined the petitioner College for B.Tech Course in Electronics and Communication Engineering under the Government quota on 13.7.2013. At the time of admission, the third respondent remitted the requisite fees of Rs.72,600/-. Thereafter, the father of the third respondent submitted a request on 29.7.2013, informing about the discontinuance of studies of his ward from29.07.2013 onwards and requesting for return of all certificates, testimonials and documents submitted at the time of admission, on payment of liquidated damages of Rs.75,000/-. In reply, the College informed the third respondent's father that he can collect the documents pertaining to the third respondent after paying the tuition fee for the entire course. Even though a request was made by the third respondent's father to reconsider the demand for payment of fees for the entire course, the College was adamant in its stand and hence, the balance tuition fee of Rs.1,95,000/- was paid under compelling circumstances. Thereafter, the third respondent approached the Committee seeking an order directing refund of the tuition fee and liquidated damages collected from him. 3. The main contentions urged was that the discontinuance being prior to 15.8.2013; the last date for admission fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court and the seat vacated by the third respondent having been filled up by the College subsequently, there could not have been any demand for liquidated damages. 4. The petitioner opposed the prayer for refund based on the relevant Clauses in the agreement entered into between the Government and the Private Engineering College Management Association as also the prospectus for the year, 2013. 4. The petitioner opposed the prayer for refund based on the relevant Clauses in the agreement entered into between the Government and the Private Engineering College Management Association as also the prospectus for the year, 2013. It was submitted that as per the terms of the agreement and the prospectus, the petitioner was entitled to collect liquidated damages from the student, since he had discontinued the course after 15.7.2013, which was the last date fixed as per the prospectus and the agreement. It was further contended that the seat vacated by the third respondent was not filled up by the College, which justified the collection of liquidated damages. 5. The Committee repelled the contentions of the petitioner and held that the third respondent had discontinued the course prior to 15.8.2013, the last date fixed by the order of the Honourable Supreme Court and that the College had, in fact, filled up the vacant seat as revealed from the statement filed on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the legality of Ext.P15 on various grounds. It is contended that as far as the question of liquidated damages is concerned, the relevant date is the date shown in the agreement and Government order. That, an extension of the last date for admission granted by the Honourable Supreme Court will not absolve the third respondent from paying liquidated damages, inasmuch as he had left the College after 15.7.2013. It is contended that the finding of the Committee that all 120 seats of the branch from which the third respondent had vacated his seat, was filled up was rendered without taking into account the 6 seats which the College was bound to fill up under the Tuition Fee Waiver Scheme. It is contended that having volunteered to remit liquidated damages, the third respondent was estopped from approaching the Committee with a prayer for refund of the amount. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that, inasmuch as the third respondent had discontinued the course prior to 15.8.2013, there could not have been demand for liquidated damages, even going by the terms of the agreement and the prospectus. It is submitted that liquidated damages was not remitted voluntarily and on the other hand, was paid under compulsion. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that, inasmuch as the third respondent had discontinued the course prior to 15.8.2013, there could not have been demand for liquidated damages, even going by the terms of the agreement and the prospectus. It is submitted that liquidated damages was not remitted voluntarily and on the other hand, was paid under compulsion. It is contended that having filled up the seat vacated by the third respondent, the retention of the liquidated damages paid by him would amount to unlawful enrichment. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Committee supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the third respondent and further submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court having fixed the last date for closure of admissions as 15.8.2013, the College could have filled up the seat vacated by the third respondent prior to that date. It is submitted that, irrespective of whether the seat was filled up or not, the demand for liquidated damages was illegal. 9. In the nature of the contentions urged, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant Clauses in the agreement and the prospectus. Ext.P1 is the consensual agreement entered between the Government and the Kerala Self-financing Engineering Management Association. In respect of seat sharing, fees fixed and payable by the students and collection of refundable deposit and such other amount with respect to the admission for the year 2013, Clause 19 of the agreement reads as follows: “19. The Educational Agency can retain the Tuition fee remitted by the student, in the event a student admitted under the Management quota or Government quota, discontinues his/her studies for any reason at any time after ie. 15th day of July 2013. In case, any student admitted to the College decides to cancel the admission for any reason whatsoever, the Educational Agency shall be entitled to collect the tuition fee of the entire course. However, in the event of the seat so falling vacant being filled up by an new candidate, the tuition fee collected as per this clause shall be refunded. The documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on payment of the above amount.” 10. Ext.P2 contains the relevant pages of the prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Course, 2013. The relevant Clause therein is 12.2.4. The documents pertaining to such student shall be released only on payment of the above amount.” 10. Ext.P2 contains the relevant pages of the prospectus for admission to Professional Degree Course, 2013. The relevant Clause therein is 12.2.4. As per Clause 12.2.4 (a) (i), if any candidate admitted against Government seats in Government/aided/Government controlled Self-financing/Private Self-financing/KAU/KVASU/KUFOS Colleges discontinues the studies after the closing of admissions in the same academic year, to join other courses/colleges or for other purposes, he/she is liable to pay liquidated damages of Rs.75,000/-. It is also stated in Clause 12.2.4 (a) (i) that, in the case of Private Self-financing Engineering Colleges, the date of closing of admission and levying of liquidated damages from the candidates, discontinuing the studies will be notified separately. Ext.P3 is the Government order by which Ext.P1 agreement was approved and major clauses regarding fee structure and allotment of seats notified for information and appropriate action and compliance by all concerned. Clause19 in Ext.P3 is the same as Clause 19 in Ext.P1. Going by Clause 12.2.4 (a) (i), a candidate discontinuing the studies after closing of admissions in the same academic year is bound to pay liquidated damages of Rs.75,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date for closing of admission was fixed as 15.7.2013 as evident from Clause 19 ofExt.P3 Government order. The learned counsel contends that even if the Honourable Supreme Court has subsequently extended the last date for closing of admission as 15.8.2013, that would not in any manner hamper the right of the College to demand liquidated damages from a student who discontinues studies after the notified date, i.e, 15.7.2013. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Parshavanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for Technical Education and others [ (2013) 3 SCC 385 ], by which the date for closing of admission was fixed as 15.8.2013. In Parshavanath, among other issues, the Apex Court considered the authority and functions of the AICTE, including grant of approval for starting technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned. The Apex Court also noticed that it is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without exception. The Apex Court also noticed that it is the requirement of law that there should be strict adherence to the time schedule for grant of approval as well as for admissions without exception. The Honourable Supreme Court noticed some disparities in the Schedule for admissions published by the AICTE and modified it to bring it in line with the Schedule for approval, as well as to prevent inequalities, arbitrariness and prejudice from affecting the students in relation to their academic courses. The relevant portion of the judgment in Parshavanath reads as follows: - “43.. ..........The order granting or refusing approval, thus, should positively be passed by 10th April of the relevant year. The appeal should be filed within one week and the Appellate Committee should hear the appeal and decide the same by30th April of the relevant year. The University should grant/decline approval/affiliation by 15th May of the relevant year. Advertisement should be issued and entrance-examination conducted positively by the end of the month of May. The appropriate Schedule, thus, would be as follows : Event Schedule Conduct of Entrance Examination (AIEEE/State CET/Mgt. quota exams etc.) In the month of May Declaration of Result of Qualifying Examination (12th Exam or similar) and Entrance Examination On or before 5th June 1st round of counselling/admission for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 30th June 2nd round counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 10th July Last round of counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 20th July Last date for admitting candidates in seats other than allotted above 30th July. However, any number of rounds for counselling could be conducted depending on local requirements, but all the rounds shall be completed before 30th July Commencement of academic session 1st August Last date upto which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student should be admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota) 15th August Last date of granting or refusing approval by AICTE 10th April Last date of granting or refusing approval by University/State Govt. 15th May 44. The admission to academic course should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised. 15th May 44. The admission to academic course should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground. 45. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the affiliation/recognition schedule afore-noticed. They both can coexist. Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of admission and commencement of the technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses.” 11. In the light of the declaration by the Honourable Supreme Court that the last date for admissions would be15.8.2013, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner College would even then be governed by the date notified in Ext.P3. The third respondent having discontinued the course on 29.7.2013, well within the last date of closure of admissions, it was open for the petitioner College to have admitted a student to the seat vacated by the third respondent. The fact that no student had joined that seat cannot be to the detriment of the third respondent. A conjoint reading of Clause 12.2.4(a) (i) and Clause 19 leaves no room for doubt that the educational agency can retain the tuition fee and demand liquidated damages only if the candidate discontinues the course after the closing of admissions in the same academic year. Even in cases where the student discontinues the course after the closing of admissions in the same academic year, the educational agency is bound to refund the tuition fee collected, in the event of that vacant seat being filled up by a new candidate. Even in cases where the student discontinues the course after the closing of admissions in the same academic year, the educational agency is bound to refund the tuition fee collected, in the event of that vacant seat being filled up by a new candidate. Hence, this Court need not venture into the factual controversy as to whether the seat vacated by the third respondent was actually filled up or not since, in either case, there could not have been retention of the fees already paid and demand for liquidated damages from the third respondent, he having discontinued the course prior to15.8.2013, the last date for closing of admissions that year. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Committee. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.39274 of2015 is dismissed. W.P.(C) No.5604 of 2016 is allowed. The College is directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,67,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Ext.P15 order. The refund as above, shall be made within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation. No order as to costs.