Karnataka High Court
Mr Sunoj Mathew vs New Navodaya Institute Of Nursing on 22 January, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2013
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Writ Petition 15881 / 2012 (edn)
Between
Mr Sunoj Mathew, 29 yrs
S/o Mathew, Maduthampara House
Chinnar P O, Elappara Village
Idukki District, Kerala Petitioner
(By Sri P T Thomas, Adv.)
And
1 New Navodaya Institute of Nursing
# 290/290, Channappanadoddi Cross
Guthalu Hamlet, Malvalli Road
Mandya - by its Principal
2 New Navodaya Institute of Nursing
# 290/290, Channappanadoddi Cross
Guthalu Hamlet, Malvalli Road
Mandya - by its Secretary
3 Registrar
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences
4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore Respondents
(By Sri R George Lazarus, Adv for R1-2;
Sri N K Ramesh, Adv. For R3)
2
Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying
for a direction to the respondents to return the original certificates of the
petitioner, etc.
Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made
the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to return the original documents produced by him at the time of admission and also for a direction to pay compensation for failure to return the certificates and for a further direction to the 3 rd respondent to initiate action against the respondents for violating the principles of natural justice.
It is stated, petitioner took admission to the 1st respondent college for B.Sc. (Nursing), a two years course in the year 2010. At the time of admission, having found him to be eligible, he was asked to pay Rs.60,000/-. According to the petitioner, he paid Rs.60,000/- towards tuition fee out of which, receipt was issued for only Rs.10,000/- For the remaining balance amount, no receipt was issued despite insistence for a receipt. Petitioner after having appeared for the examination, when he could not continue the course due to ill-health and sought for return of the 3 documents submitted at the time of admission, respondent/college rather insisted to make payment though he had made full payment of Rs.60,000/-. It is also stated, despite direction of the University Grants Commission and other Bodies and also by the Nursing Council that the colleges shall not retain the original documents of the candidates demanding higher fee structure, respondent college has not returned the documents. Accordingly, relying upon an unreported decision of this Court (WP17881/2012 decided on 3.1.2013) and also a based on a Circular issued by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences to the effect, except withholding Rs.1,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses the entire fees has to returned to the student and the student shall not be deprived of the benefit of taking back the document, petitioner's counsel has sought a direction for return of the documents.
Counsel representing the respondent college submitted that petitioner has paid only Rs.10,000/- and not Rs.60,000/- as claimed by him though he has received the amount from the Government by way of scholarship fee to be paid to the college. Petitioner having completed the course for one year, 4 on some health ground has sought for return of the document causing loss of tuition fee to the management. The petition itself is not maintainable and also the Circular issued by the UGC and the Nursing Council cannot be made applicable to the respondent college and the petitioner has to make payment of the remaining Rs.50,000/-.
It appears there is a dispute between the petitioner and the college regarding payment of fees i.e., Rs.50,000/-. The issue needs to be dealt elsewhere as a matter of fact finding whether payment has been made by the petitioner to the respondent college or not. Apart from that, so far as the Circular issued is concerned, it only discourages such practice of withholding the documents produced at the stage of admission when the candidate intends to change the institution or discontinue the course. In the present case, petitioner has continued the course and appeared for the examination. Unless he pays the fee as required as a matter of obligation in the usual course, he cannot seek extension of the Circular issued by the UGC or the Nursing Council. However, if the petitioner has got any prima facie material to prove that he has paid Rs.60,000/-, that would form the 5 basis for him to seek refund had he not continued the course. Since petitioner has continued the course for one year, question of returning the amount paid by him, if at all does not arise. Further more, as regards the documents which are with the respondent college, the dispute could be resolved between the parties in a private negotiation or else approach the appropriate forum.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge an