Madras High Court
G. Nixon vs The Director Of Technical Education on 11 October, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11/10/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA
Writ Petition (MD) No.2119 of 2012
G. Nixon ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director of Technical Education
Chennai.
2. The Registrar
Anna University
Chennai.
3. The Secretary
A1-Ameen Engineering College
Karundevanpalayam
Erode. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of Writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent College to
return the capitation fee, tuition fee and hostel fee, totally to the tune of
Rs.1,32,000/- within a time frame fixed by this Court.
!For petitioner ... Mr.J. Ashok
^For respondents ... Mr.Mohammed Imran
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
- - - - -
:ORDER
The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent College to return the capitation fee, tuition fee and hostel fee, totalling to Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees One lakh and thirty two thousand only) within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner completed his Higher Secondary School in Viruthachalam Education District, Cuddalore District under the stream Maths, Biology and got 668 marks.
3. The petitioner applied for admission in Al-Ameen Engineering College. The petitioner for the reasons best known has not impleaded the College as a party but only the Secretary of the College a party to the writ petition.
4. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty two thousand only) at the time of admission.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on being admitted to Bharath University under the same stream of Mechanical Engineering, he requested the third respondent to return the capitation fee of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) along with hostel fee and tution fee of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand only).
6. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner also filed a writ of demand to which reply was submitted, denying the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as capitation fee.
7. In reply, while denying the receipt of capitation fee, the stand was taken that the petitioner was not entitled to refund of any amount, but as the measure of goodwill, the respondent returned a sum of Rs.16,000/- to the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner has left the institution, is entitled to refund of money deposited by him at that time of admission.
9. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in RAMDEO BABA KAMALA NEHRU ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND OTEHRS Vs. SANJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS {(2002) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 487}, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to laid down as under:-
"2. The High Court has allowed the petition directing a sum of Rs.95,500/- to be refunded. The figure of Rs.95,500 has been arrived at by the High Court by deducting an amount of Rs.1000 from the tution fees as according to a GO issued by the State Government Rs.1000 was liable to be deducted while making the refund. The only plea which was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appelalnts was that Appellant 1 being a private unaided educational institution, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution did not lie against it. No other plea was raised before the High Court. The factum of payment of the tuition fee and caution money by the respondent to Appellant 1 is not disputed. The preliminary objection raised by the appellants has been overruled by the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in Shri Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust Vs.V.R.Rudani.
3. An order the Government of Maharashtra which admittedly governs the payment of tuition fees etc., has been placed on record as Annexure P.1, according to which, in the event of admission being cancelled after the process of admission was over but upto 31st October, refund of tuition fee shall be made after making deduction of 40% or Rs.10,000/- whichever is lesser. The applicability of the government order to Appellant 1 is not disputed."
10. On consideration, I find that this judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has not placed on record any rules or regulation under which the petitioner is entitled to refund of tution fee and hostel fee deposited by the candidate. As regards the capitation fee is concerned, the receipt of capitation fee is denied by the respondents. Therefore, it becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in the writ petition.
11. In sum and substance, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for the refund of capitation fee or tution fee as he has neither disclosed the provisions of law under which he was entitled to the refund of tution fee or hostel fee paid by the student in case, he leaves the College.
12. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court on which he placed reliance, the payment of refund of fee was governed by the Government instructions which stipulated the College could only return the sum of Rs.10,000/- and not more. But in this case no such instructions has been placed on record to maintain this writ petition. In absence of any legal right of refund, no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued for refund and tution fee or hostel fee.
13. In the result, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.
mvs.