ORDER : 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to refund the fees amount paid by the petitioner after deducting only processing fees, to the petitioner immediately, as per the representation at Annexure-G. (ii) Any other writ or order deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Petitioner was a candidate for Post Graduate Diploma in Management (for short ‘PGDM’) course in respondent No. 2-Institution. He had paid a sum of Rs. 83,000/- on 21.03.2016 and further a sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- on 31.05.2016 towards fees. Before commencement of the PGDM Course by the respondent No. 2-Institution, he sought for withdrawal of admission for the aforesaid course on 10.06.2016, for which, respondent No. 2-Institution had replied by way of email saying that “We have received your mail regarding the cancellation of admissions. We will get back to you in the first week of July, 2016.” Consequently, on 17.08.2016, respondent No. 2-Institution is said to have been refunded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- out of Rs. 3,20,000/- towards the refund of the admission fees paid by the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved by the conduct of respondent No. 2-Institution in not refunding the entire amount, petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 10.11.2016 at Annexure-G, apprising them of the circumstances which forced him to withdraw the course. Since there is inaction on the part of the respondent No. 2-Institution, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to refund of a sum of Rs. 3,19,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards processing fee, having regard to the fact that, he did not intend to pursue the PGDM course due to domestic reason and one of the main reason is that his father undergone bypass heart surgery. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-Institution vehemently contended that present petition is not maintainable having regard to the status of respondent No. 2. It was further contended that, abruptly, the petitioner had withdrawn the admission on 10.06.2016, whereby, respondent No. 2-Institution could not fill up the vacancy and due to which, respondent No. 2 would suffer financial loss. 2-Institution vehemently contended that present petition is not maintainable having regard to the status of respondent No. 2. It was further contended that, abruptly, the petitioner had withdrawn the admission on 10.06.2016, whereby, respondent No. 2-Institution could not fill up the vacancy and due to which, respondent No. 2 would suffer financial loss. To support his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Institution had relied upon Annexure-R1 Public Notice, which reveals under what circumstances the refund is permissible. In support of his contention, relied upon the decision passed in the case of L.K. Talwar and Another vs. Lovely Professional University, 2012 SCC Online P&H 9150. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 6. Question for consideration in the present petition is whether writ petition is maintainable or not? If writ petition is maintainable, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the present petition or not? 7. No doubt, respondent No. 2 is a private Institution and it is the contention of respondent No. 2-Institution that writ is not maintainable with reference to Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the Allahabad Court decision in the case of Roychan Abraham vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others decided on 26.02.2019 it is held that writ is liable even against the private Institutions. Allahabad High Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision passed in the case of Zee Telefilms vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677 and held as under: “34. The issue as to whether a private body, though not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was examined by the Constitution Bench in Zee Telefilm Ltd. The question that fell for consideration was whether Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short “BCCI”) falls within the definition of State. The ratio laid down in Andi Mukta was approved, but on the facts of the case, Supreme Court, by majority held that BCCI does not fall within the purview of the term ‘State’ but clarified that when a private body exercises public function even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. Para 31, 32 and 33 of Zee Telefilm reads thus: “31. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game of cricket. These activities can be said to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free merely because it or he is not a State. Under the Indian jurisprudence there is always a just remedy for the violation of a right of a citizen. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is much wider than Article 32. 33. Thus, it is clear that when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226.......” 35. The ratio decidendi of Zee Telefilms is clear that: (i) BCCI a private body is not ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12; (ii) BCCI discharges public functions; (iii) an aggrieved party can seek public law remedy against the BCCI under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In view of the aforesaid decisions and interpretation of AICTE Guidelines are involved in the present matter, AICTE would fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the fact that AICTE decisions are binding on the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the contention of respondent No. 2 that writ petition is not maintainable, is hereby rejected. 8. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner took admission for PGDM Course in respondent No. 2-Institution and paid Rs. 3,20,000/- towards fees in two installments, i.e. on 21.03.2016 and 31.05.2016 respectively. Due to unavoidable situation, he withdrew the admission and one of the main reasons is that the petitioner’s father was suffering from heart aliment. 8. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner took admission for PGDM Course in respondent No. 2-Institution and paid Rs. 3,20,000/- towards fees in two installments, i.e. on 21.03.2016 and 31.05.2016 respectively. Due to unavoidable situation, he withdrew the admission and one of the main reasons is that the petitioner’s father was suffering from heart aliment. Thus, the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the admission on 10.06.2016 i.e. much before the commencement of the Course. It is undisputed fact that the Academic session and teaching process would commence from 1st August of the year. It means academic session and teaching process was yet to commence as on the date of withdrawal of admission. Thus, respondent No. 2-Institution had sufficient time from 10.06.2016 to 1.08.2016 so as to fill up the vacancy caused due to withdrawal of petitioner’s admission on 10.06.2016. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No. 2-Institution that due to withdrawal of the petitioner’s admission, respondent No. 2-Institution would suffer financial loss, which may not hold good. Refund policy as per All India Council for Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) guidelines reads as under: “Refund Policy - As per AICTE Guidelines (Reference: AICTE Guidelines No. AICTE/Legal/04(01)/2007, April 2007) Process of refund of tuition, development and other fees after cancellation of admission secured through CAP rounds, institute level rounds and vacancy rounds of admission: The candidate, who has been provisionally admitted, may cancel admission by submitting an application for cancellation in duplicate, in the prescribed format and may request for refund of fee.” The refund of fee as applicable shall be made in due course. It is made clear that such application for cancellation will be considered if and only if the admission is confirmed by paying the prescribed tuition fee and other fees in full and by submitting the original documents. Refund shall be made after deduction of the cancellation charges as shown:- SITUTION REFUND On request received before the date of start of the academic session and seat could be filled by the Institute before the cut off date. Entire fee less by Rs 1000/-* On request received on/after the beginning of academic session & seat could be filled by the Institute before the cut off date. Entire fee less the Seat Cancellation Charges on pro rata basis** On request received before/after the start of the academic session and seat could not be filled by the Institute. Entire fee less by Rs 1000/-* On request received on/after the beginning of academic session & seat could be filled by the Institute before the cut off date. Entire fee less the Seat Cancellation Charges on pro rata basis** On request received before/after the start of the academic session and seat could not be filled by the Institute. No Refund (except security deposit) Note: *Entire amount of Security/Caution Money Deposit will be refunded to the candidate. **For calculation of the Cancellation Charges on the pro-rata basis, one month shall be treated as one unit e.g. if the candidate cancels admission on third day i.e. within one month after the start of academic session and the seat is filled before the cut off date, then Cancellation charges on pro rata basis will be the higher amount of (Entire fee)/12 or Rs. 1000/-. 9. As per the above guidelines of AICTE, the petitioner’s case would fall under the first situation namely “On request received before the date of start of the academic sessions and seat could be filled by the Institution before the cut off date, refund is entire fee less by Rs. 1000.” In respect of cut of date for filling up of seats are concerned, nothing is forthcoming in any of the documents. Thus, one has to draw inference that cut off date would be prior to 1st August of the year and respondent No. 2-Institution had sufficient time to fill up the vacant seat caused due to withdrawal of petitioner’s admission. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Institution cited L.K. Talwar’s decision, referred supra, wherein, the Court has not examined Anenxure-R1 Public Notice, which reveals refund policy as per AICTE Guidelines. That apart, factual aspect of each case is required to be taken into consideration. In the present case, undisputedly, the petitioner had withdrawn the admission on 10.06.2016 and academic course and Sessions would be commencing from 1st August 2016. Consequently, respondent No. 2-Institution had sufficient time to fill up the vacant seat. Accordingly, petitioner’s case would fall under first situation as prescribed in the refund policy of AICTE guidelines. Hence, respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner after deducting Rs. 13,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which petitioner is entitle for interest at 6% per annum. 11. Hence, respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner after deducting Rs. 13,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which petitioner is entitle for interest at 6% per annum. 11. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.