Karnataka High Court
Dr Prashanth Kumar Narayan Achar vs Father Muller Medical College on 26 July, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.8419/2012(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
1 DR PRASHANTH KUMAR NARAYAN ACHAR
S/O NARAYAN ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O NO.201, UMESH APRTMENTS
PARRAO LANE, KARANAGALPADY
MANGALORE-575002
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. M.VINAY, ADV. APPEARING FOR M/S: RAVI
B NAIK ASSOCIATES FOR PETITIONER)
AND :
1 FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE
FATHER MULLER ROAD
KANKANADY, MANGALORE-575002
REP BY ITS DEAN
2 RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES (KARNATAKA)
JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK
BANGALORE-560041
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
3 MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG
KOTLA ROAD, OPP MATHA SUNDARI COLLEGE
2
NEW DELHI-110002
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
4 FEE FIZATION COMMITTEE
CET CELL PREMISES, 1ST FLOOR
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD
MALESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560003
REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
5 KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL
NO.70, 2ND FLOOR, VIDYAKEEYA BHAVAN
K R ROAD, H B SAMAJA ROAD CORNER
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560004
REP BY TIS REGISTRAR
... RESPONDENTS
(By M/S : NAIK & NAIK LAW FIRM FOR R1;
SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2 & 4;
SRI.ZULFIKAR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV. FOR R3;
R5 - SD )
THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: DIRECT THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO DELIVER THE FOLLOWING
DOCUMENTS RETAINED BY IT;
1.MBBS MARKS CARD-I, II, III.
2.DEGREE/PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE.
3.INTERNSHIP CERTIFICATE.
4.REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.
5.ATTEMPT CERTIFICATE.
6.DATE OF BIRTH-AGE PROOF CERTIFICATE.
7.ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE.
8.COMEDK RANK PROOF.
9.ADDRESS PROOF AND.
10.STAMP SIZE SNAPS-2, PASSPORT SIZE SNAPS-5.
3
DIRECT THE IST RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO PAY
COMPENSATION IN A SUM OF RS.25.00 LAKHS TO
THE PETITIONER SINCE THE IST RESPONDENT IN
ORDER TO COLLECT EXCESS FEE HAD RUINED THE
CAREER OF THE PETITIONER FROM 2006.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent - College to deliver his testimonials and also to issue a direction to the 1st respondent - College to pay a compensation of Rs.25 lakhs on the ground that the 1st respondent - College has collected excess fee and has ruined the career of the petitioner from 2006.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, he was allotted a seat in the 1st respondent - College to pursue his Masters Degree in Opthalmology. The fees fixed by the Government was Rs.2,34,000/- p.a. Contrary to the directions of the Government, respondent-1 demanded a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs p.a. Though he has completed his Post Graduation, the 4 testimonials are not returned by the respondent on the ground that still the Writ Petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.9,95,000/-. Therefore, the present petition is filed. According to the petitioner, he was l liable to pay only a sum of Rs.2,34,000/- p.a. as annual fees as prescribed by the State and demand of the tuition fees at the rate of Rs.6.00 lakhs p.a. calculated by the 1st respondent is erroneous and illegal and that demand made by the 1st respondent has to be quashed and a direction has to be issued to return the testimonials.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that fee payable to Post Graduation Courses by the students who have studied or studying in the 1st respondent College is pending consideration by the Hon. Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.19031-19048/10 and other connected matters. Therefore, the 1st respondent - College contends that unless and until the payment is made to the 1st respondent - College, the testimonials 5 cannot be returned. If such testimonials are returned, in the event of the 1st respondent - College succeeds in the aforesaid SLP, it would be difficult for the 1st respondent - College to recover the amount from the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the respondent requested the court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties as the facts in this Writ Petition are not in dispute as the dispute is only in regard to the payment of annual fees payable by the Writ Petitioner, whether the Writ Petitioner has to pay the annual fees as contended by him at the rate of Rs.2,34,000/- p.a. or at the rate of Rs.6.00 lakhs p.a. as demanded by the 1st respondent which is under adjudication by the Hon. Apex Court.
5. Therefore, this court suggested the Writ Petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee in regard to the disputed amount and that Bank guarantee has to be invoked by the respective parties subject to the result of the Hon. Apex Court. But the appellant is unable to furnish the Bank guarantee.
6
6. In the circumstances, we do not see any reasons to interfere with the demand made by the 1st respondent because if we direct the 1st respondent to handover the testimonials as demanded by the petitioner, in the event the 1st respondent - College questions before the Supreme Court, it is difficult for the 1st respondent to recover the amount as claimed by him. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in this Writ Petition.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Even now, it is open for the petitioner to furnish the Bank guarantee to the 1st respondent in regard to the amount demanded by the 1st respondent subject to the result of the Special Leave Petitions. If Bank guarantee is furnished, the 1st respondent shall return the documents to the Writ Petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak