JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education and others is directed against an order and judgment dated 21.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in OWP No. 352/2011 titled “ Sara Hamid Elementary Teachers Training College Vs. J&K Board of School Education and Ors”, whereby the writ Court has allowed the petition of the respondent No.1 herein and directed the appellant Board to refund the examination fee deposited by the respondent No. 1 with regard to the students enrolled for the ETT examination session 2009-2011 within a period of two months. 2. Briefly, stated the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent No. 1, a Trust was running a Teacher Training College at Chitragam, Shopian, by the name of Sara Hamid Elementary Teachers Training College. In the process of its working the respondent No. 1 made certain admissions in the ETT/NTT session 2009-2011. It is claimed by the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition that due to certain shortcomings pointed out by the appellant Board the Registration Return forms of the students admitted in the college could not be submitted in time. The appellant Board granted only one day time on 28.03.2011 to submit the Registration Return (RR) forms of the candidates admitted in the various ETT colleges. The respondent No. 1 claims that it was not possible to complete all the requisite formalities and submit Registration Return (RR) forms in one day and, thereafter, when Registration Return (RR) forms were submitted after completion of due formalities, the same were not accepted. It was claimed before the writ Court that though the appellant Board received the examination fee, admission forms and Registration Return (RR) forms, but yet the students admitted by the respondent No. 1 were not informed in time and, therefore, were debarred from sitting in the examination. 3. It is in the context of this grievance, the respondent No. 1 approached the writ Court seeking following reliefs:- (i) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the admission of the students of Session 2009-11 ETT/LTTC College admitted by the petitioner college and conduct their examination. 3. It is in the context of this grievance, the respondent No. 1 approached the writ Court seeking following reliefs:- (i) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the admission of the students of Session 2009-11 ETT/LTTC College admitted by the petitioner college and conduct their examination. (ii) That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondent Board to grant the affiliation to the said college on the basis of inspection already conducted and give to it the same treatment which has been given to others in the identical circumstances. (iii) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent board to give to the petitioner college the preferential treatment as is evident from the government policy that the district which do not possess the private colleges be provided. 4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant Board. It was the stand taken by the appellant Board that the respondent No. 1 had on its own made admissions though it had never been granted any No objection Certificate/affiliation/recognition, either by the State Government or by the appellant Board. The admissions were made by the respondent No. 1 illegally and without any authority of law. It was thus the stand taken by the appellant Board that in view of withdrawal of earlier ‘No Objection Certificate’ granted in its favour by the Competent Authority, it was not permissible to allow the respondent No. 1 institute, to make admissions and then sit in the examination as a matter of right. 5. The petition was considered by the writ Court and vide judgment dated 21.07.2014, same was allowed. The writ Court did not adjudicate upon any of the issues raised by the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) but directed the Appellant Board to refund the examination fee received from the students through the respondent No. 1-Trust for the examination Session 2009-2011. It is this judgment of the writ Court which is called in question before this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the relief granted by the trial Court is beyond the case set up and the prayer made in the writ petition. It is this judgment of the writ Court which is called in question before this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the relief granted by the trial Court is beyond the case set up and the prayer made in the writ petition. There was neither any averment made in the writ petition that respondent institute had, after collecting examination fee, deposited the same with the Appellant Board nor is there any documentary evidence on record to show that the respondent No. 1 ever refunded the examination fee which it had collected from the students and allegedly deposited with the Appellant Board. In the absence of such pleadings and the evidence on record to substantiate such pleadings, it was not permissible for the writ Court to issue a mandamus to the Appellant Board to refund the examination fee to the respondent No. 1. 7. Otherwise, also the examination fee which is deposited by a Trust or Society running a school or college is collected from the students and unless it is demonstrated clearly that the examination fee received from the students have been refunded to the students no claim can be laid by the respondent No. 1 before the Appellant Board. Allowing such course to happen would be tantamount to unjustly enriching the respondent No. 1 trust. 8. Otherwise also the issue sought to be projected before us is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in the absence of any documentary evidence on record. 9. For all these reasons, we find merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment dated 21 st July, 2014, is set aside. We, however, leave it to the appellant to work out his remedy before the civil Court which will be in a better position to determine the complicated disputed questions of fact raised in this petition. 10. Disposed of.