ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of ‘Writ of Mandamus’ declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent-College for not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had completed M.B.B.S. Course without any dues in the said college, and in order to declare it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; and to pass such other order and orders… ” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner herein was admitted into Respondent No.2 College for MBBS UG course under ‘B’ category in the year 2015. At the time of admission, he submitted his certificates of previous qualifications, including the SSC Mark List, 12th Grade Mark List and Transfer Certificate, along with the verification form and application. He completed his four-year MBBS course and House Surgeon/Internship on 23.03.2021. 4. As per the guidelines of Respondent No.3 University, the person who admitted under ‘B’ category is liable to pay Rs.11,00,000/- each for every academic year towards tuition fee. Therefore, the petitioner, who was admitted under ‘B’ category, is liable to pay Rs.11,00,000/- each year towards tuition fees. Accordingly, on 06.08.2015, he paid Rs.11,00,000/- by way of DD towards tuition fees and other required university fee, bus fee of Rs.52,600/-. On 05.11.2016, he also paid a partial payment of fee i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- through Andhra Bank out of Rs.11,00,000/- 5. The petitioner claims to have paid the entire fees to the respondent and asserts that as of today, there are no outstanding fee dues in respect of Respondent No.2 College. Consequently, he submitted representations to Respondent No.2 College on 23.04.2021 and 10.11.2022, requesting for return of his original certificates held by the College. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bank guarantee, which was provided by the petitioner as a guarantee to the next year fees was returned to him on 04.12.2019, as he had already paid the entire tuition fee amount. Learned counsel further submits that due to non-return of his certificates, the petitioner is unable to apply for PG course despite having secured a score of 401 out of 800 marks in NEET-PG 2023 and accordingly, the petitioner has qualified for admission into PG courses. Learned counsel further submits that due to non-return of his certificates, the petitioner is unable to apply for PG course despite having secured a score of 401 out of 800 marks in NEET-PG 2023 and accordingly, the petitioner has qualified for admission into PG courses. The petitioner has also approached Respondent No.2 College and requested for return of his original certificates. However, the Respondent No.2 rejected the petitioner’s request and also representations submitted by him. The rejection was based on the grounds that the petitioner is still liable to pay Rs.41,41,445/- out of the total tuition fee Rs.56,42,600/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed a memo regarding payment of fee for Rs.25,00,000/- on 03.12.2019 and Rs.2,80,000/- on 08.04.2020. He furnished receipts issued by Respondent No.2 College and also submitted additional receipts for bus fees and other fees paid by him. He further submits that, despite receiving the entire amount, Respondent No.2 erroneously claiming that the total amount had not been received from the petitioner and denying the petitioner’s Right to receive the original documents held by Respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that a complaint was registered by third party against one of the accountants of Respondent No.2 institution vide FIR No.143/23 dated 08.04.2023. The complainant alleges that the accused accountant collected an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the students but did not account for it. In view of such scenario, the fee of the petitioner may be mismanaged by the said accused. He further submits that withholding the certificates by the College is nothing but detrimental to the petitioner’s future. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 cannot be withhold whatever may be the reason, particularly for non payment of fees, which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of High court for the State of Telangana in D.Vaishnavi Vs. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 89, wherein, it is held as under: “...13. There is no dispute in the instant case as to the fact that the 3rd respondent has custody of the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner and that the petitioner had discontinued the M.B.B.S. course in the 3rd respondent-College after she secured admission in a Government Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh on 30.08.2019. 14. The said certificates are undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. 14. The said certificates are undoubtedly the property of the petitioner. 15. It is important to note that in the entire counter-affidavit there is no mention as to the provision of law which empowers the 3rd respondent to withhold the original academic certificates of a student who discontinues the course. 17. Para no. 7(iii) of the said G.O. states as under: “7(iii). The original certificate submitted by the candidates shall not be returned to the candidates till they complete their course of study and appear for the University examination.” 18. The counsel placed strong reliance on the above provision. 29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs. 3 lakhs from the petitioner/her parent, but we hold that withholding her original academic qualification certificates, is impermissible in law. 30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; Para no. 7(m) of G.O.MS. No. 114, Health, Medial and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07.2017 is declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd respondent is forthwith directed to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs...” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Detla Srujan Bhupati Varma Vs. The Joint Secretary and others, W.P.No.6722 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, wherein it is held as under: “...6. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of D. Vaishanavi V. State of Telangana in Writ Petition No.21137 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020. The Joint Secretary and others, W.P.No.6722 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, wherein it is held as under: “...6. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of D. Vaishanavi V. State of Telangana in Writ Petition No.21137 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020. In the said case, the petitioner herein submitted his academic qualification original certificates to Respondent No.3-College therein and subsequently she attended for certificate verification and the conselling conducted by Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in the State of Andhra Pradesh for seats reserved for non-locals and pursuant to the directions of this Court, for consideration of her candidature against the left-over vacancies, she got admission into a Government Medical College under the Convener Quota under ‘Open Category’ in the final phase of counselling. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Telangana High Court allowed the Writ Petition and declared the action of respondent No.3-College therein in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioners therein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned action of Respondent No.5-College in declining to return the original academic qualification certificates submitted by the petitioner on 09.02.2022 at the time of admission into the first year M.B.B.S. Course is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India...” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in S. Muthukamatchi Vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University and others, W.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2012, dated 18.12.2012, wherein it is held as under: “...4. However, Mr. N. Balakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent contended that if the student leaves a course in the midstream, he would be entitled to the return of the Certificates, only after paying the tuition fee for the remaining incomplete period of the course. The learned Counsel also contended that if a student leaves a College in the midstream, the seat goes waste and that the fixation of fee for every student is actually based upon the cost worked out before the Fee Fixation Committee. The learned Counsel also contended that if a student leaves a College in the midstream, the seat goes waste and that the fixation of fee for every student is actually based upon the cost worked out before the Fee Fixation Committee. Once the particular fee is fixed for a particular academic year, the students admitted in that academic year are obliged to pay the same fee, till the end of the course every year. Similarly, there is an obligation casts upon the College to charge only those fees. In such circumstances, it is implicit that the students like the Petitioner's daughter will have to pay the fees for the rest of the course of study for collecting the Certificates. I would not venture to get into that controversy, namely, whether the College is entitled to collect the balance of fees or not. The main grievance of the Petitioner is about the Certificates of her daughter. Those Certificates are not like fixed deposit receipt on which, banks claim a general lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the Certificates cannot be retained at any rate. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the Fourth Respondent to return all the original Certificates deposited by the Petitioner forthwith. No costs...” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that in view of the ratio laid down by this Court as well High Court for the State of Telangana, Respondent No.2 College has no right to withheld the certificates on the ground of non-payment of tuition fees by the petitioner. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has filed counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit, wherein respondent college furnished the data regarding the fee paid by the petitioner for the entire course, is an amount of Rs.15,01,155/- out of total fee Rs.56,42,600/-. It is stated that Rs.41,41,445/- is yet to be payable by the petitioner, despite having allowed to complete the entire course. 13. Respondent No.2 also submits the statement of account of the petitioner with the respondent college filed here with, which indicates that the petitioner is liable to pay a total fee Rs.41,74,400/-, out of which Rs.41,41,445/- is the tuition fee. The Respondent College also submitted letters of undertaking executed by the petitioner’s father, dated 02.12.2019 and 17.01.2020, wherein he admitted the liability for payment of the tuition fee and promised to pay the same. The Respondent College also submitted letters of undertaking executed by the petitioner’s father, dated 02.12.2019 and 17.01.2020, wherein he admitted the liability for payment of the tuition fee and promised to pay the same. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that contrary to the letters of undertaking and the statement of account of the petitioner, the petitioner has made false claims in his affidavit, stating that the entire due amount was paid and also presenting fabricated cash receipts to an extent of Rs.28,80,000/-. 14. The fact remains that after the amendment of the Income Tax Act, No public or private institution is permitted to accept more than Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cash. Therefore, the cash receipts submitted by the petitioner are only fabricated one and not at all issued by the Respondent No.2 institution. Moreover, the fee paid by the petitioner in the 1st year as well as a part of the fee paid in the 2nd year, were made only through bank transfers. Therefore, having knowledge about the mode of payment of tuition fee only by way of bank transfer and claiming the amounts were paid by way of cash receipts is against the law and it is only a false claim on part of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, filed the present writ petition with false statement of facts and tried to mislead this Court by making false claim as if he had paid the entire amount towards the tuition fee and also the petitioner’s actions are based upon fabricated documents. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief particularly equity relief and writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the ration laid down by the Constitutional Courts. 15. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oswal fats oils limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), (2010) 4 SCC 728, wherein it is held as under: “...20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. Additional Commissioner (Administration), (2010) 4 SCC 728, wherein it is held as under: “...20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. 23. This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance—State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. [ (1977) 2 SCC 431 ], Vijay Kumar Kathuria (Dr.) v. State of Haryana [ (1983) 3 SCC 333 ], Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872], G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [ (1991) 3 SCC 261 ], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ], Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane [ (1996) 4 SCC 297 ], Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja [ (2001) 3 SCC 92 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 433], Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ] , Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [ (2008) 2 SCC 326 ] , K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [(2008) 12 SCC 481] , G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [ (2009) 3 SCC 141 ] and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 ]. 25. In Dalip Singh case [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 ] the appellant's grievance was that before finalising the case under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the prescribed authority did not give notice to the tenure-holder, Shri Praveen Singh (the predecessor of the appellant). 25. In Dalip Singh case [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 ] the appellant's grievance was that before finalising the case under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the prescribed authority did not give notice to the tenure-holder, Shri Praveen Singh (the predecessor of the appellant). On a scrutiny of the records, this Court found that the prescribed authority had issued notice to Shri Praveen Singh, which was duly served upon him and held that the appellant is not entitled to relief because he did not approach the High Court with clean hands inasmuch as he made a misleading statement in the writ petition giving an impression that the tenure-holder did not know of the proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority. The preface and para 24 of that judgment read as under: “For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. ‘satya’ (truth) and ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, the post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final...” 16. Learned counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others, (2023) SCC OnLine J&K 195, wherein it is held as under: “...18. Learned counsel for the Respondents also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs. Union Territory of J&K and others, (2023) SCC OnLine J&K 195, wherein it is held as under: “...18. In the above backdrop, an important issue crops up for deliberation in the instant case, i.e., impact and affect of suppression of relevant information from the Writ Court exercising equitable jurisdiction. 22. In the recent judgement of the Apex Court in Shri K. Jayaram and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and others, 2021 SCC Online 1994, paragraphs 12 to 16 are very relevant and, therefore, reproduced hereunder: 12. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. 13. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India, has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus: "33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of Page 14 LPA no.20/2023 c/w LPA no.46/2023 material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter." 23. From the case law referred to hereinabove, we can possibly deduce following principles: (i) Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. (ii) To invoke this extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, it is of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything. (iii) A litigant is bound to state all facts which are material or relevant to the litigation. (iv) The litigant must candidly state all the facts before the court without reservation. He cannot be permitted to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and keep back or conceal other facts. (v) Jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. (vi) Suppression of material facts, concealment of full details of litigation, present and past, between the parties qua subject matter of dispute, distortion or manipulation of relevant facts, misleading the court by stating false facts or withholding true facts disentitle a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India…” 17. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that the bank guarantee which had been issued in favour of Respondent No.2 did not extend by the petitioner from time to time as required and also as per the guidelines framed under G.O. As such, the Respondent No.2 was unable to encash the bank guarantee which covered only one year tuition fee. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court can safely determine the facts for its conclusions. 19. The petitioner was admitted into Respondent No.2 College and he had submitted his original documents at the time of his admission and the said certificates are held by the Respondent No.2 College till today. It is not in dispute as to the fact that Respondent No.2 is in custody of the original academic certificates of the petitioner. It is a statutory obligation on the part of the petitioner to clear the tuition fee arrears every year, as per the guidelines issued by Respondent No.1. More so, the Respondent No.2 has admitted the payment of tuition fees for the 1st year and a part payment fee for the 2nd year. 20. It is also a fact that the father of the petitioner submitted letters of undertaking for the payment of remaining tuition fee amount. That the Respondent No.2 furnished ample evidence proving that petitioner is liable to pay tuition fee for four years. In view of the amendment to the Income Tax Act, the claim of the petitioner that he paid the entire amount by way of cash receipts cannot be accepted since it is against law. On the contrary, it appears that these receipts might have been fabricated and out of the record of Respondent No.2. 21. The contention of the learned counsel for Respondents that the petitioner filed this present writ petition with unclean hands and with a motive to prejudice this Court to achieve his object without paying the remaining tuition fee amount, to grab his certificates by falsehood, is valid and sustainable, in view of the evidence placed before this Court. As contended by the petitioner, in view of the ratio laid down by Division bench of High Court for the State of Telangana as well as this Court that the facts of the case are not one and the same to the facts of case in hand. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for return of his certificates, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for return of his certificates, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court. The Respondent No.2 College may initiate appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the remaining fee amount, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. 22. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the present writ petition, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner filed this writ petition with unclean hands and with false statement of facts. Therefore the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. But, the omissions committed by the petitioner in filing this writ petition may not be attributable to the petitioner but may be at the instance of his family members more particularly his father, who executed letters of undertaking in favour of Respondent No.2. Therefore the petitioner cannot be penalised, in view of the humanitarian grounds by which the future of the petitioner cannot be spoiled. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner/his father to pay the remaining balance amount in two instalments, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- should be paid within a period of two weeks from today, and the remaining amount should be paid within a period of three months thereafter, by submitting a bank guarantee for the said amount in favour of Respondent No.2, with a valid period of six months with immediate effect. After compliance of the same by the petitioner, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are specifically directed to return all the original and other documents of the petitioner as stated above. 24. With the above result, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.