JUDGMENT : 1. The Vananchal Dental College & Hospital has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed by learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No.22 of 2015 (JET), whereby the application, filed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 under Section 9 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act on 19.08.2015 for issuance of appropriate orders and direction to the appellant to refund the tuition fee to the respondent nos. 1 to 4, which has been paid by them to the appellant as the same has been also paid by the State Government, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand i.e. excess the money they have taken, has been allowed. 2. The fact of the case is that respondent nos. 1 to 4 took admission and pursued Bachelor in Dental Surgery, for the academic Session 2008-2013 in Vananchal Dental College & Hospital, Farthiya, Hoor, District-Garhwa. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 have paid the entire tuition fee as demanded by the Appellant – College for the aforesaid academic session. They have also paid tuition fee regularly for every academic years as demanded by the College Management. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 at the end of the final semester came to know, that their full tuition fee have already been paid to the Appellant -College every academic year by the District Welfare Officer, Garhwa (Respondent no. 7 in this case) under the State Government Scheme, as the respondent nos. 1 to 4 belong to Other Backward Category (OBC) and as per Jharkhand Government Welfare Scheme, the fee of the students belonging to the OBC category has to be paid to the concerned school or college by the concerned District Welfare Officer. 3. The total fee for the course of Bachelor in Dental Surgery was Rs.8,00,000/- as per demand/estimate of the Appellant-College. (Annexure-2 to the original application filed before the JET, which is letter No. VDCH issued by the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital dated 09.02.2009 addressed to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hajipur, Vaishali (Bihar) stating categorically total fee of the course Rs. 8,00,000/-for the session 2008-2013). Since, the entire tuition fee was paid to the college by the District Welfare Officer, Garhwa, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have approached the appellant, who assured them that their tuition fee would be refunded very soon, but the same has been not refunded. 4. The petitioners/students/respondent nos. 8,00,000/-for the session 2008-2013). Since, the entire tuition fee was paid to the college by the District Welfare Officer, Garhwa, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have approached the appellant, who assured them that their tuition fee would be refunded very soon, but the same has been not refunded. 4. The petitioners/students/respondent nos. 1 to 4 herein preferred an application before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal for the same. The notice was issued to the appellant, who appeared and filed counter affidavit. The stand taken by the appellant for not refunding the fee, in question, on the ground that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 were most in-disciplined, notorious and mischievous amongst students in the College and always searched for opportunity to disturb the peaceful environment of the college, for which appellant, Vananchal Dental College & Hospital has cited two incidents:- (i) with regard to the evening of 21.07.2009, when violence cropped up by the several students causing wide spread destruction of college properties; and (ii) incident of 11.12.2013, when vehicles, equipments and instruments in various departments of the college were damaged, which led to institution of an F.I.R. before the Garhwa Police vide Garhwa P.S. Case No.826 of 2013 under Sections 147, 149, 504, 427, 323, 506 of IPC, against 43 persons including respondent Nos.3 and 4, on the basis of the written report by the then Administrative Officer of the college on 12.12.2013. However, the dispute was settled between the parties in terms of compromise and the case filed by the Management and the counter case filed by the students, both were compromised and dropped. 5. From the rival contention of the both sides, the dispute before the Tribunal was with regard to excess payment of fee and its refund as quantum of tuition fee paid by the students and payment of fee made by the Government under the District Welfare Scheme of the Backward classes. The Tribunal after going through the record has categorically considered the case and has found that respondent nos.1 to 4 have completed their course including internship from the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital and were issued no dues certificate and character certificate by the college authorities in favour of them. The Tribunal after going through the record has categorically considered the case and has found that respondent nos.1 to 4 have completed their course including internship from the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital and were issued no dues certificate and character certificate by the college authorities in favour of them. When the question of refund of amount came, the college has taken a different stand without any basis (i) that college authority has said that fee was not Rs.8,00,000/-(ii) the fee given by the students has been adjusted because of damage caused by student of the session 2008-2013. 6. After going through the record, the Jharkhand Education Tribunal has considered that in view of the payment of fee by the District Welfare Scheme, Garhwa, the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital has no right or authority to withheld the fee deposited by the students every year for the session 2008-2013. The learned Tribunal has given a liberty to the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital to adjust part of the amount, if shortfall of the fee, which has not been deposited by the Government. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shahid Khan has submitted that as per Annuxure-7, the office of the Chairman, Fee Fixation Committee, Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of Jharkhand; Campus of Government Women's Polytechnic, Tharpakhna, Ranchi-1 vide Memo No.27 dated 25.04.2011 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Member-cum-Member Secretary, Fee Fixation Committee, who has been pleased to fix the maximum ceiling of fee, which may be charged from the students by the Private Unaided Technical and Professional Institutes of Jharkhand for Academic Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The name of the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital, Garhwa, figures at Sl. No.16 where after the implementation of 6th Pay recommendations, the total tuition fee was Rs.2,67,500/-, Development Fee Rs.18,700/-and other charge Rs.7,000/-per year. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the damage caused by the students to the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital and thus passed an order directing the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital to reimburse/refund the fee taken from the respondent nos. 1 to 4, after adjusting the shortfall out, which has not been deposited by the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand through District Welfare Officer, Garhwa. 9. 1 to 4, after adjusting the shortfall out, which has not been deposited by the Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand through District Welfare Officer, Garhwa. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal has wrongly doubted the credential of the enquiry committee of the teachers, who assess damage caused in the college. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that appeal may be allowed and the impugned award passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2016 passed in Case No. 22 of 2015 (JET) be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh has further submitted that all the 17 students, who were held responsible by the enquiry committee in its report dated 25.07.2009 are those students whose payment was made under the welfare scheme by the Government. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh has submitted that the stand taken by the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital before this appellate Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the fee was settled at the time of admission to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs, each year Two lacs, which is apparent from the letter issued by the authority addressed to the Punjab National Bank, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the main application. The said letter shows that the statutory fee for the students was Rs. 8 lacs and that letter shows that the Bank was intimated from where they have shown eagerness to take educational loan. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Vananchal Dental College & Hospital has never claimed the said letter to be forged, rather the said letter shows that it was issued by the college to the Bank, nor any contradictory material or fee Register for the academic Session 2008-2013 was bought on record. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondents has impressed upon this Court by submitting that any public notice issued by the Fee Fixation Committee as contained in memo no. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondents has impressed upon this Court by submitting that any public notice issued by the Fee Fixation Committee as contained in memo no. 27 dated 25.04.2011 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology Member-cum-Member Secretary Fee Fixation Committee for the academic year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 cannot have retrospective effect nor be made applicable for the students, who have taken admission in the Session 2008 to 2013, as such, the appellant -Vananchal Dental College & Hospital is trying to mislead this Court. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondents-students has further submitted that the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa and District Welfare Officer, Garhwa before the Jharkhand Educational Tribunal has been brought on record through his counter affidavit filed on 26.09.2018. Paras-4, 5 and 6 of which may be considered and the same is quoted hereunder: “4. That it is humbly stated the respondents have paid the fees from their pocket from academic session 2008-2013 to the appellant college with acknowledgment from the appellant. 5. That it is humbly stated that the District Welfare Officer, Garhwa also filed its Reply before Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi and stated that entire fees of the respondents has been paid by the Government and if any amount has been charged by the respondents shall be returned back to the respondents. 6. That from the bare perusal of the both documents it is crystal clear that the appellant has charged money from respondents as well as from Government under the welfare scheme.” 17. The Annexure-2 of the counter affidavit amply shows that fee was Rs. 8 lacs as the District Welfare Officer in para-5 of his counter affidavit has stated, that the tuition fees was required Rs. 8 lacs for the Session and in para-6, it is submitted that the Welfare Department of the Government has deposited the amount and the college (Vananchal Dental College & Hospital) authority has grabbed the amount of the students. They have received the amount in excess. Hence, they are liable to refund the amount paid by the students. No contrary evidence has been brought on record to this by the appellant College authority, as such, the Court of appeal shall consider the pleading of the parties in the original case. 18. They have received the amount in excess. Hence, they are liable to refund the amount paid by the students. No contrary evidence has been brought on record to this by the appellant College authority, as such, the Court of appeal shall consider the pleading of the parties in the original case. 18. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, it appears that two false contentions have been taken by the appellant: 19. First, that the fee was never Rs. 8 lacs for the Session 2008 to 2013, rather, it was based upon the Fee Fixation Committee recommendation contained in memo no.27 dated 25.04.2011 and after implementation of 6th pay commission the tuition fee is Rs.2,67,500/-, development fee is Rs.18,700/- and other charge is Rs.7,000/-. In the understanding of this Hon’ble Court, this letter dated 25.4.2011 is with regard to academic year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. That will not be applicable in the case of the students, who have taken admission for the session 2008 to 2013 and their fee structure has been sent by the college Management to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hajipur, Vaishali dated 09.02.2009, which categorically stated that the fee structure for course Session 2008 to 2013, tuition fee for first year Rs. 2 lacs to be paid before 10th November, 2008, tuition fee for second year Rs. 2 lacs to be paid before 10th July, 2009, tuition fee for third year Rs. 2 lacs to be paid before 10th July, 2010, tuition fee for fourth year Rs. 2 lacs to be paid before 10th July, 2011, the total course fee is Rs. 8 lacs, as such, learned Tribunal has rightly considered the fee to be Rs. 8 lacs for the entire Session 2008 to 2013. The College authority neither brought their fee register either before the Tribunal or before this Court of Appeal to create any doubt in the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the same has been endorsed by Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa as well as District Welfare Officer, Garhwa. 20. The second contention by the appellant, that excess fee amount has been adjusted for vandalism and loss caused to the College by the students. 20. The second contention by the appellant, that excess fee amount has been adjusted for vandalism and loss caused to the College by the students. This submission is not acceptable to this court because of two reasons : firstly, it is admitted position that there is excess amount deposited as fee before the college authority and secondly, college authority cannot adjust any amount on such frivolous ground of causing damage from excess fee. They can only adjust the same from the caution money and that too under process of law. Apart from this, the college authority has granted character certificate, no dues certificate in favour of the students, thus such plea cannot be allowed to be taken by the college authority. The college authority is behaving in an arbitrary manner on such plea when, they have categorically stated that both the incidents were committed by entire students of the college, 17 in number in first incident and second incident by another 43 students including respondent nos. 3 and 4 namely, Mazharul Haque and Sunil Yadav, which was ended into a compromise. Such plea is not allowed to be taken by the college, if this is allowed by this Court, then the Vananchal Dental College & Hospital has to show that all the 43 students were equally liable and have paid for the loss caused to the college though the same is also illegal as it can only be adjusted from caution money not from excess fee amount. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellant has given much emphasis on letter brought on record as Annexure-2, purported to be issued by the college authority to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hajipur, on the basis of information obtained under the Right to Information Act, as the Branch Manager has subsequently said that no loan has been granted to such students, but in all bonafide the college has not shown the prospectus for the Session 2008 to 2013 or entire admission register for the students of the Session 2008 to 2013 to dispute this fact that the fee was not Rs.8 lacs for the Session 2008 to 2013. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the 17 students who were held responsible by Inquiry Committee in its report dated 25.07.2009 are those students whose payment was made under the Welfare Scheme by the Government so as to grab the same. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the 17 students who were held responsible by Inquiry Committee in its report dated 25.07.2009 are those students whose payment was made under the Welfare Scheme by the Government so as to grab the same. 23. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as discussed above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi. 24. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 25. Both the I.As. i.e. I.A. No. 5075 of 2018 and I.A. No. 5231 of 2017 for stay are hereby dismissed as the appeal has already been dismissed.