JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner, a former student of the 1st respondent College is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P12 and to direct the 1st respondent to return the original Certificates including the SSLC Book, Conduct Certificate and Transfer Certificate forthwith within a stipulated time. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 1st respondent to return the security deposit and fees that was collected from the petitioner, with interest. 2. The petitioner would state that the petitioner joined the 1st respondent-College in Computer Engineering Branch (Self Financing Division), in the academic year 2015-16. The course commenced on 14.07.2015. The petitioner paid fees of Rs. 27,000/- as evidenced by Ext.P1. 3. The petitioner states that due to unforeseen financial stringencies and hardships, the petitioner had to leave the College, discontinuing studies. The petitioner left the College on 11.01.2016. While leaving the College, the petitioner sought return of the Certificates submitted by the petitioner and the course fee. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to. Furthermore, the certificates submitted by the petitioner were retained by the 1st respondent. By Ext.P12 letter dated 16.01.2021, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs. 23850/- which is the tuition fee payable for first year. It is challenging Ext.P12, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit and contested the writ petition. The 1st respondent stated that the petitioner joined the course on 14.07.2015. The admission to the Course was closed on 15.07.2015. The petitioner continued the Course and appeared in the 1st Semester Examination. The petitioner did not express his desire to leave the Course at the earliest. The petitioner applied for Transfer Certificate only in the month of June, 2016. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent pointed out that after closing the admission to the Course, if a candidate is leaving the Institution, the 1st respondent will not be able to fill that vacancy by inducting another candidate. As a consequence, the 1st respondent lose the course fee payable by the candidate. The Course of study is a self financing one. 6. However taking a humanitarian view, the 1st respondent required the petitioner to pay only the course fee for one year. As a consequence, the 1st respondent lose the course fee payable by the candidate. The Course of study is a self financing one. 6. However taking a humanitarian view, the 1st respondent required the petitioner to pay only the course fee for one year. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, as per A.I.C.T.E. guidelines, the 1st respondent is entitled to course fee of the year in which the student has studied. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for A.I.C.T.E. 8. The pleadings and arguments raised at the Bar would reveal that the petitioner joined the course on 14.07.2015 and left the institution on 11.01.2016. The petitioner had paid tuition fee in part. As the petitioner could not prosecute the studies, the petitioner left the College. This Court in a number of judgments, has held that when a student leaves a College, the Educational Institution has no right to retain certificates deposited by the student, for any dues from the student. Retention of certificates and documents submitted by the students would be, violating the fundamental rights of the student. Therefore this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent cannot continue to withhold the certificates of the petitioner. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to return all the certificates sought for by the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate, within a period of two weeks. If the petitioner applies for a Transfer Certificate paying the prescribed fee, the 1st respondent shall issue Transfer Certificate also. It is made clear that the 1st respondent will be entitled to recover amount if any due from the petitioner, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on merit on the claim of the 1st respondent to recover fees from the petitioner. All contentions in that regard are left open.