Karnataka High Court
Miss. Harshitha vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2017
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.4611-4667/2016
&
WRIT PETITION Nos.4677-4678/2016
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.6776/2016(EDN- MED-ADM)
IN W.P NOs.4611-4667/2016 &
W.P.NOs.4677-4678/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. MISS.HARSHITHA
D/O OF K.C. RAJARAM,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10,
3RD CROSS, VADIVEL NAGAR,
SANKARAN PALAYAM,
VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU-632 001.
2. MISS. MULAGIRI MANASWINI
REPRESENTED BY M. MADHUSUDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 6-5-806,
2
SRINAGAR COLONY,
NEAR WATER TANK,
ANANTAPURAM-515 004.
3. MISS. SREENITHI
D/O OF LATE RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5/16,
SUNDARAM STREET,
RANI BHEL NAGAR,
SIPCOT, RANIPET-632 003,
VELLORE DISTRICT.
4. MISS. RACHITHA R.
D/O MR. RANGANATHA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.59,
RANGADHAM, OPP TO CIT,
PRAKRUTHI NAGAR,
BYADARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 091.
5. MISS. PRAGATHI TIWARI
D/O CHANDRASEKAR K
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 23, VTH CROSS,
SHIVANANDA NAGAR,
MOODULA PALYA,
BANGALORE-560 072.
6. MISS. PAVITHRA R
D/O M. RAJENDRAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/ESIDING AT 80, 3RD CROSS,
DRC POST, HOSUR MAIN,
BANGALORE -560 029.
3
7. MR. SMITH ANIL MAJETHIA
S/O DR. ANIL S MAJETHIA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RATNUM, 10
KAMNATH WADI,
GHANSHYAM NAGAR,
BHUJ (KUTCH)
GUJARAT- 370 001.
8. MR. AKSHAY S CHIKKENAKOPPA
S/O SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.170 "B",
5TH CROSS, REUNKA NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI - 580 030.
9. MISS. SHIVANI KISHORE
D/O DR. KISHORE KUMTAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 644, 22ND MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 41.
10. MISS. SONAL
D/O JAI NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2224,
SECTOR 23, SONEPAT,
HARAYANA -131 001.
11. MR.RITESH SUNSARAM
S/O KUSHAL KUMAR JHA
REPRESENTED BY LOCAL
GUARDIAN MR.ARAVIND KUMAR
4
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 18, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, BABA NAGAR,
KATTIAGANAHALLI, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE- 560 064.
12. MR.VIVEK R.P.
S/O RAMESH BABU N.S,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.83, ANAGHA,
3RD CROSS, DESAI GARDEN,
VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD,
ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE
13. MR.YOGESH V. HEGDE
S/O C.N.VISHWESWARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT 42/7,
3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
JAVARAIAH GARDEN,
THYAGARAJA NAGAR,
BANGALORE- 560 028.
14. MISS.SARWAT PARVEZ
D/O MOHAMMED SHAHID PARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT 9TH D CROSS,
ILYAS NAGAR,
J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE- 560 078.
15. MISS.SWATI VERMA
D/O LALITESHWAR PRASAD VERMA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT 71-C,
5
VAIBHAVA SHOPPING COMPLEX,
SUNCITY VISTAAR,
PO-AIR FORCE STATION,
BAREILLY,
UTTAR PRADESH-243 002.
16. MR. MOHAMMED SAHIL
S/O MOHD AYUB,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 1/8,
MUKTA PRASAD NAGAR,
BIKANER, RAJASTHAN - 334 004.
17. MR. PANKAJ VASHISTH
S/O KAMAL NAIN VASHISTH,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 1926, SECTOR - 13,
HUDA BHIWANI,
HARYANA - 127 021.
18. MR.YASHAS
S/O T.G.GANGADHRAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 291, 8TH CROSS,
K.C.LAYOUT, MYSORE
KARNATAKA - 570 011.
19. MISS. NANDA R L
D/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PRASEEDA,
EVRA - 79, MUTTADA (POST),
PARUTHIPURA, TRIVANDRUM
KERELA - 695 025.
6
20. MISS NEERAJA R
D/O G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SREEHARI,
KALARCODE,
SANTHANAPURAM P.O.,
ALAPUZHA - 688 003.
21. MISS. ARATHY. M
D/O MURALEEDHARAN K. V
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT SIVAPURI
MADAKOTH HOUSE
VILLAPURAM P.O
CALICUT-673 008.
22. MISS AKRITI AGARAWAL
D/O SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT1B, SHAYAM NAGAR
OPP-SOUTH CITY,
RAI BERALLI ROAD, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226 025.
23. MR SARTHAK BHATIA
S/O VANEET BHATIA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT 304-L
MODEL TOWN,KARNAL-132 001.
24. MR DHRUVA MUGRAI
S/O AJAY MUGRAI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT J-5/168
IIIRD FLOOR, RAJOPOURI GARDEN
7
NEW DELHI-110 027
25. MR KASHISH GERA
S/O PREM PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT 19-A
GALI No.1, BHIM SAIN COLONY
BALKABGARH, FAIRADABAD
HARYANA-121 004.
26. MR TUSHANT DAWAR
S/O SANJEEV DAWAR
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT133, HUDA SEC 11
PHASE-1, PANIPET
HARYANA-132 103.
27. MR MAHENDRAN M NAIR
S/O G MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT MAMBILLY HOUSE
N.A.D MUKAL, EDATHALA NORTH P.O
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
KERELA-683 561.
28. MR ASHISH JOHNY THOMAS
S/O JOHNEY THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANIYAMPARAMPIL
MILLENIUM NAGAR
ETTUMANOOR PO
KOTTAYAM
KERELA-686 562.
8
29. MR ABHINAV P. V
S/O SASI EV
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
"NAVRANG", UDINUR
UDINUR PO
KASARAGOD DISTRICT
KERELA-671 310
30. MISS SONALI PATHAK
D/O ANIL KUMAR PATHAK
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
G-201, INDRA PRASATH 5
NEAR PRAMLADNAGAR HDFC BANK
PRAHLAD NAGAR, SATELLITE
AHMEDABAD
GUJARAT-380 015.
31. MR. SANDHIYA SETHIA
S/O DR ASHOK SETHIA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT 51, ANOOP NAGAR
INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH
32. MISS PURBA CHANDRA
D/O PARTHA SARATHI CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT B-149
SAIL SATELLITE COLONY
DHURWA, RANCHI
JHARKHAND-834 004.
33. MISS RESHMA
D/O RANADIV
AGED 20 YEARS
R/A IDUVAYAL HOUSE
MULLASSERY POST
9
TRISHUR DISTRICT
KERALA STATE.
34. MR AKSHATH KUMAR JAJU
S/O RAMESH CHAND JAJU
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
R/AT NO.39-12-1/1, JAJU BHAVAN
T K RAO STREET, LABVI PETA
VIJAYAWADA-10
35. MISS CHITTEPU KEERTHANA
D/O SRI PRASADA REDDY
AGED 18 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.8-300/1/C
ROAD NO.3, NEW VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
CHINTAL
HYDERABAD-500 054.
36. MISS SHIVANI S BHADRANNVAR
D/O SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT NO.586, 2ND FLOOR,
14TH B CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
KEMPAPURA HEBBAL,
BENGALURU-560 022.
37. MISS M LAKSHMI
D/O S P MURUGESHAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
NO.51, 2B, 10TH AVENUE,
PRASHANTH CASTLE,
ASHOKNAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 083
10
38. MISS VARSHA
D/O SUBRAMANIAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT 32/14, SRI KRISHNA NIVAS,
SUGAVANAMOORTHY MADAM STREET,
HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI-635 109.
39. MISS CHANDANA
D/O JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
NO.4, 13TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 070.
40. MISS PAVITHRA REKHA
D/O RAVIKUMAR,
REPRESENTED BY SRI S.P MURUGESHAN,
AGED ABOUT17 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.116/1A,
NEW NO.232/1A,
PALANI, ANDAVAR KOIL STREET,
AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-600 023.
41. MISS P MEERA
D/O KRISHNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT NO.40/1156B1,
MANCHU TOWERS,
1ST FLOOR, T.D.ROAD,
KOCHI-682 011.
42. MISS HARI PRIYA
D/O ASHWINI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25-13/1, SGS NIVAS,
11
ROAD NO.4, KAKATIYANAGAR,
RAMACHANDRAPURAM,
HYDERABAD-32.
43. MISS GARLAPATI MRUDULA REDDY
D/O GARLAPATI VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11-3-392/2/16,
FLAT NO.301, MR.RESIDENCY,
SRINIVASA NAGAR,
SECUNDERABAD.
TELANGANA - 500 061.
44. MISS SRAVANTHI K
D/O KODALI PUNNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
R/AT NO.87, THIRD CROSS STREET,
CHANDRAN NAGAR,
CHROMPET,
CHENNAI-600 044.
45. MISS AKSHITA GOYAL
D/O RITHISH GOEL,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55, SECTOR-25,
PANCHKULA,
HARYANA-134 116.
46. MISS K .S. SUVEDA
D/O KUPPUSAMY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, GANDHI STREET,
J.K.CASTLE VANUMPET,
CHENNAI-600 091.
12
47. MISS MIMITH MOHAN JOHN
D/O MOHAN JOHN,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUVANKODE HOUSE,
SNEHA NAGAR-68,
ULIYAKOVAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA-691 019.
48. MISS KODURI HARSHITHA
D/O KASI GANGADHARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 3-1, MAIN ROAD,
MALLAVARAM POST,
WEST GODDAVARI DISTRICT,
MALLAVARAM-533 342.
49. MR MALLIKARJUNA REDDY
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 16-75/G5,
NETHAJI STREET, KOILAKUNTELA.
KURNOOL-518 134.
50. MR ADITYA KUMAR
S/O ANUPAM KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT JP COLONY,
CHANDWARA, MUZZAFFARPUR,
BIHAR-842 001.
51. MISS SMRITI
D/O SHASHI BHUSAN RAI,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DAMUCHAWK,
MUZAFFARPUR,
BIHAR-842 001.
13
52. MR REHAN CHOUDARY
S/O ONKARMAL CHOUDARY,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VPO-BATOTH,
VIA PATODA, SIKAR,
RAJASTHAN-332 312.
53. MISS R. KAVISHRI
D/O RAGHU,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 550/70,
DHARPURAM ROAD,
KSC SCHOOL ROAD CORNER,
TIRUPUR, TAMIL NADU- 641 604.
54. MISS M DIVYAI
D/O MANU DEV,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 763,
SECTOR-23, HUDA BHIWANI,
HARYANA.
55. MR VIKRAM HEGGADE
S/O RAJU HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 2ND 4TH FLOOR,
WATER SURFACE DATA CENTRE BUILDING,
ANANDRAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 009.
56. MISS RASHI
D/O BALJEET GIRRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT E- 18,
GURU JAMBESHWAR UNIVERSITY
14
NEW CAMPUS HISAR,
HARAYANA.
57. MISS SAMEEKESHA VERMA
D/O AMAR CHANDRA VERMA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDING AT NARMADA
11B, NAUSENABAUGH
MALKAPURAM
PO - GANDHIGRAM,
VISHAKAPATNAM
ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 005.
58. MR AMOGH DIWAKER
S/O DIWAKER
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
RESIDING AT 241,
9TH MAIN ROAD
SRINIVASA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 050.
59. MR ADITYA NARAYAN
S/O LAKSHMI NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESIDING AT E49,
ZAHIR HUSSAIN ROAD,
BLOCK17,NEYVELI - 607 801.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI SUBBA REDDY K. N, ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI MUDIT KUNDLIA, ADVOCATE)
15
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NIRMAN BHAVAN
NEW DELHI- 110 077.
2. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
DWARAKA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110 077.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
4. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
EDUCATION KARNATAKA,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
JAYANAGAR-TILAK NAGAR,
NEAR SANJAY GANDHI HOSPITAL
BANGALORE- 560 041.
6. COMEDK KARNATAKA
CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL
ENGINEERING AND DENTAL
16
COLLEGES KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
# 132, SECOND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS
MALLELSHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 055.
7. SRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCES AND RESEARCH HOSIPITAL
NH-04, SIRA ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 106
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
8. KARNATAKA PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES
FOUNDATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, # 132, 2ND FLOOR,
11TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 055.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.H R ANITHA CGC FOR R-1
SRI N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2
MS.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-3 & R-4
SRI S.G.PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R-5
MS.FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR
SIR SHETTY & HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 & R-8
SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOATE FOR R-7)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARITCLE
UNDER 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE R-1 TO 7 TO REALLOCATE AND TO SHIFT ALL THE
PETITIONERS TO ANY OTHER RECOGNIZED MEDICAL COLLEGES
IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND TO FURTHER DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO TRANSMIT THE FEES PAID BY THE
17
PETITIONER IN THE SAID RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS TO
WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE SHIFTED.
IN W.P.No.6776/2016:
BETWEEN:
KUMARI S.R. SNEHA
D/O M.SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SIDDARAMANAGARA
HOSADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
POCKET-14, SECTOR 8,
DWARAKA PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI - 110 017.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
18
4. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR,
SANJAY GANDHI HOSPITAL COMPLEX,
TILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
6. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL,
ENGINEERING AND DENTAL COLLEGES
OF KARNATAKA (COMEDK),
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
No.132, II FLOOR, 11TH MAIN ROAD
17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 055.
7. SHRIDEVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SIRA GATE, TUMKUR - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-3
SRI N.KHETTY, ADVOATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARITCLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO RE-ALLOCATE THE PETITIONER TO ANY
OTHER MEDICAL COLLEGE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WHICH FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF RESPONDENTS 2 & 5.
19
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
We have heard Mr.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of W.P.Nos.41899- 900/2015 (hereinafter referred to as `College/institution'), Mr.S.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Mudit Kundlia for petitioners of W.P.Nos.4611-67/2016 and 4677-78/2016 (hereinafter referred to as `students' for the sake of convenience), Mr.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioner of W.P.6776/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the `student'), Smt.H.R.Anitha, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.N.Khetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Ms.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Sri.S.G.Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Ms.Farah Fathima for Shetty and Hegde for Respondent No.6 and 8, Mr.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent No.7 of W.P.Nos.4611-67/2016. 20
2. We may also record that the students as well as college are parties in the petitions preferred by the College as well as by the students and learned advocates have made submission for respective clients in the cross or connected matters too.
3. At the outset, we may record that writ petition Nos.41899-900/2015 was preferred by the college for the relief inter alia to quash and set aside the letter dated 23.09.2015 issued by Union of India not to renew the permission for 3rd Batch of MBBS Course in the College/institution for the academic year 2015-16 and College has also prayed for directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for the renewal of the permission of that respective MBBS course with intake capacity of 150 seats for the academic year 2015-16. The consequential prayers are also made by the College. We may also record that in the aforesaid group of petitions this Court on 28.09.2015 had passed the following order: 21
"The 2nd petitioner was established pursuant to the grant of permission dated 13.07.2013 by the MCI for running a Medical College with an annual intake of 150 students. The permission was renewed for the Academic year 2014-15 by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application for renewal of the permission for the 3rd batch i.e., for the Academic year 2015-16 which was referred to the MCI, which got caused an assessment of the physical and other teaching facilities available. The Inspectors of MCI reported certain deficiencies and submitted the same to the MCI. The said report was in turn forwarded to the Central Government with a recommendation not to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of permission for the Academic year 2015-16. Thereafter, the Central Government addressed a letter to the 22 petitioners dated 04.03.2015 informing them regarding the recommendation of the MCI and consequently, they granted a hearing on 12.03.2015 at 10.00 a.m. by the Hearing Committee. The petitioners appeared before the Hearing Committee and gave two hard copies and one soft copy in MS document showing the compliance of removal of deficiencies. After hearing the petitioner and taking note of the material produced by them, the Hearing Committee recommended for review of the assessment of the schemes of the MCI along with the said requisite copies of the compliance report and recommendations of the Committee and its observations was also sent. Thereafter, MCI declined to review its earlier decision, by a lengthy order dated 11.05.2015. The 2nd respondent-Central Government acting on the said letter declined to grant the permission. Aggrieved by the 23 same, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P. Nos. 36810- 811/2015. After hearing all the parties, this Court by a considered order held that the stand of the Central Government as well as the MCI is unsustainable and accordingly, they were quashed. Thereafter, at para 17, it was held as under:
"In view of the fact that the MCI is declining to review its earlier order and to find out whether the compliance report submitted by the petitioners removes the deficiencies pointed out by the MCI in the earlier report, it is open to the Central Government to call upon them to review their earlier decision in the light of the compliance report or send the report of the MCI and the compliance report furnished by the petitioners to any 24 other independent agency such as the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka as was done in other cases and find out whether the petitioners have removed the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the MCI and whether their case could be considered for grant of renewal of permission for the Academic Year 2015-16. Such exercise shall be done on or before 23.09.2015 as the last date prescribed for admission of the students to the undergraduate Course of the MBBS as per the Schedule is 30.09.2015.
After the said order, the Central Government neither called upon the MCI to review its earlier decision in the light of the compliance report nor sent the said report to the MCI and the compliance report furnished by the 25 petitioners to any other independent agency such as the Health and Family Welfare Department. On the contrary, they have placed the matter before the Hearing Committee. The Hearing Committee observed that though the College claims to have rectified the deficiencies, it can only be verified through physical assessment by the MCI. It is for that reason we had called upon the Central Government to send the report of compliance submitted by the petitioners to the MCI so that the Inspectors would physically verify whether deficiencies have been removed or not and on the basis of such report, to review its earlier order and then send its report. Therefore, now it transpires that without verification of the compliance report, the Hearing Committee was of the view that the deficiencies are not condonable and it has reiterated its earlier view, which has been set-aside by this Court in 26 the aforesaid writ petition. In para 7 it is stated that the Central Government has duly considered the order of the High Court and they decided not to renew the permission for admission of third batch for the academic year 2015-16. There is no due consideration. They have not understood the directions issued and without verifying whether deficiencies are removed or not they have proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is patently illegal, contrary to law and therefore it is unsustainable. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government submitted that they did not have sufficient time to file a counter to this writ petition. In fact the Apex Court in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College & Hospital Vs. Union of India reported in (2011)4 SCC 623 has observed thus:27
"The applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either directly or through the state Government allotment. The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the deficiencies or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal of permission should be done well in time, so that such existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set 28 right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years, is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner and not to cause disruption. The need for renewal of permission emanates from the fact that a newly established college is not required to have in place, full complement of the teaching faculty and complete infrastructure in the first year itself. This is because, during the first year, the college will be catering only to a limited number of first year students. During the second, third and fourth and fifth years, the student strength will increase and every year correspondingly the infrastructure and faculty will have to be increased". 29
Again the Apex Court in the case of Al-Karim Educational Trust Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996)8 SCC 330 observed thus:
"It is impractical to insist, for a fool proof or absolute adherence to all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the purpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the institution has begun to function, students admitted to institution have taken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not hang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner.
The question to be posed, is whether there exists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and not whether better arrangements that will render the set up more efficient 30 and more satisfactory, should be insisted as "a wooden" rule. It may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there which call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters.
What is required is a total, practical, overall view and not literal compliance with the deficiencies pointed out."
Though the judgment was referred to by us in the earlier judgment, the authorities have overlooked the same. The petitioners are seeking for renewal for the third year. They assert that all the deficiencies pointed out by the 1st respondent have been duly complied with. If deficiencies are all removed and still if the petitioner is unable to get permission, there is no way the petitioner could be compensated either by the 1st respondent or by the 2nd respondent. Moreover meritorious 31 students, who are waiting would be deprived of a seat in the dental course. Thus, public interest is also involved. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that if the Court declines to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is a case of failure to exercise its discretionary power vested in it by the Constitution on this Constitutional Court. In that view of the matter, as we are satisfied prima facie that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal, contrary to law and as the last date fixed for admission to Under Graduate MBBS course is expires on 30.09.2015, petitioners are entitled to the interim order sought for. Therefore, in the interest of students and the public and having regard to the conduct of the respondents, we pass the following interim order:
32
(1) The Central Government shall grant provisional permission to the petitioners to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-16, which will be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court.
(2) The State Government shall include the name of the petitioner-Institution for Undergraduate Course of the MBBS, so that the petitioner-college could admit students both from the Government quota as well as from their quota, which also would be subject to the result of this writ petition.
(3) The Government and the Petitioners shall make it very clear to the students, who are admitted, that their admission is subject to the result of this writ petition.
In view of the fact that we are passing this order today at 11.30 and the counseling comes 33 to an end and the final list of selected candidates shall be released by tomorrow, the State shall have an extended counseling and see that the students as well as the college is accommodated."
4. As per the College pursuant to the above referred order passed by this Court, the admissions were granted to the students on their respective seats which includes the students herein on Comed-K seats. However, it appears that thereafter Medical Council of India (MCI) carried the matter before Apex Court against the above referred order dated 28.09.2015 passed by this Court and Apex Court vide order dated 16.10.2015 stayed the order and the said order for ready reference reads as under:
"Issue notice by speed post to the Respondent- State, returnable on 26th October, 2015. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Standing counsel for the respondent-State shall also be served.34
Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, has submitted that the admissions have been given to the students in pursuance of the impugned judgment and he has also stated that the said admissions shall be kept in abeyance.
The admissions given to the students shall remain in abeyance until further orders.
The petitioner shall carry out inspection, as directed by the High Court, within four weeks from today.
The respondent-state shall give details as to how the list of students was given to Respondent No.1 and whether all the students in order of their merit were informed about their possibility of getting admission and whether admission was given in order of their merit without disregarding students having higher merit. The State shall also give explanation as to how the students were selected, if they were selected by the State.35
Leave granted.
By way of ad-interim relief it is directed that the implementation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed, subject to the direction given hereinabove."
(emphasis supplied)
5. It appears that thereafter on 21.01.2016 upon the application moved by the students, the Apex Court further observed that it would be open to the students/applicants therein to approach any other forum if available in law for redressal of their grievance. But the fact remains that in view of the above referred order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Apex Court since the Apex Court stayed the operation of the order passed by this Court dated 28.09.2015 the admissions granted to the students were kept in abeyance. Resultantly, the students could not prosecute the study pursuant to the admissions granted but as the students were permitted to prosecute the remedy, they preferred W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 & 4677- 36 78/2016 before this Court for the prayer interalia to issue appropriate writ to the Union of India, Medical Council of India, State Government, COMED-K and the college to reallocate and shift all the students in any other recognized colleges in the State of Karnataka and to direct the respondents to transmit the fees paid by the petitioners to the respective institutions to which they are shifted.
6. This Court on 23.06.2016 in the W.P.Nos.4611- 67/2016 & 4677-78/2016 passed by the following order:
"The petitioners in these writ petitions were allotted seats and admitted to various Professional courses including Medical, Dental, Engineering and other courses in various Colleges in the State of Karnataka on the basis of their ranking in COMED-K 2015 and also in other States in different Colleges, prior to being admitted to Sridevi Medical College. This Court in its order dated 28.09.2015 passed in W.P. Nos.41899-41900/2015 had made it very clear that allotment of seats to Sridevi Medical College is subject to the result of these proceedings. Without being aware of the said 37 condition, these petitioners, who had already been admitted to various professional courses opted to get admitted in the Sridevi Medical College.
The interim order granted by this Court was challenged by Medical Council of India before the Apex Court. The Apex Court stayed the interim order passed by this Court and made it clear that those admissions must be kept in abeyance. The students were not heard. When students approached the Apex Court, they were directed to approach this Court. The students, who were meritorious and were all admitted to various professional courses lost their seats in the process. They have also lost one year. After filing this writ petition, they did not get any favourable orders. They approached the Government and KPCF. The Government in turn had several rounds of discussion with KPCF to accommodate these students. The proposal of the State Government with regard to KEA seats is as under:
Since the 60 merit Students who have secured seats at Sridevi Medical College, 38 Tumkur through CET 2015-16, are suffering for no fault of theirs and present situation is created due to management approaching Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, without complying lacunas pointed out by the MCI and not substantiating the Interim Order dated 28- 9-2015 before the Supreme Court and also not getting the MCI permission for admission for the year 2016-17, the following proposal is made
a) Since Medical Council of India did not give permission for admission of MBBS as on 31st May 2016 to Sridevi Medical College, Tumkur for the year 2016-17 for admission. The Government Medical Colleges, to make way for admitting these above 60 students who were selected during 2015-16, by way of offline counseling after last round of counseling of CET 2016-17 and they can be accommodated in 4 Government Medical Colleges (non Hyderabad Karnataka - Region) in Karwar, Madikeri, Chamarajanagara and Gadag by Admitting 15 students in each college. 39
b) It is proposed/clarified that the Government Medical Colleges at Karwar, Madikeri, Chamarajanagara and Gadag will set aside 15 seats for accommodating above mentioned students, with the permission of Hon'ble High Court.
c) As and when the college gets permission from MCI to admit students, the Sridevi Medical College shall surrender 60 seats for compensating the above mentioned seats over and above the seat which may be surrendering as per consensual agreement.
d) As there is no provision under KEA rules for allotment of seats who has not appeared for the CET Exam 2016-17, specific order is required accommodate above said students.
Regarding 60 students admitted to Shridevi Medical College, Tumkur during 2015-16 through COMED-K Quota, the State Government has requested the COMED K to take a stand in the same manner as that of the Government to accommodate 60 students of 40 the year 2015-16 selected by COMED K against the KPCF (COMED-K) Quota during the current year, i.e., 2016-17 (Copy enclosed - Annexure
1). The reply of COMED K is as follows. (Copy enclosed - Annexure 2):
a) COMED - K merit list for the year 2015-16 is intended only for the said year and the students of that year cannot be considered for admission during the next or subsequent year. This has been made clear in our Brochure itself.
b) In respect of admissions during 2016-
17, as the Government is aware, all admissions in Private Institutions have to be done only through NEET Examination and its eligibility. If any of the candidates in question come through NEET scheme, they may select seat strictly based on merit.
c) It may kindly be recalled that when these students selected seats during 2015-16, they were fully aware of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in its 41 order dated 28-09-2015 in W.P.No.41899-900/2015 and in W.P.No. 41398/2015, where a direction was issued to allocate the seats on merit subject to the result of the said writ petitions. In other words, the student are required to wait for the final outcome of these writ petitions.
d) The allotment letter issued by COMED K to these students also carried the condition that the said allotment is subject to the result of the writ petitions. In the circumstances and in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.261/2016, dated 28-04- 2016, 06-05-2016 and 09-05-2016, no allotment can be done by COMED K unless the candidates qualify in NEET. However, it is for the State Government to consider accommodating these students against the Government quota seats in Private Colleges as per rules.
The above facts are submitted for the perusal of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
42
At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for KPCF files a memo, which is extracted below:
"The Respondent No.8 herein i.e., Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation and Respondent No.3 i.e., State Government have sought to enter into a Consensual Agreement for Academic year 2016-17, where under 40% seats will be surrendered by the member institutions of Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation to the State Government. It is submitted that apart from the same additional 60 seats are being surrendered by the member institutions of Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation to the State Government in order to accommodate the 60 students admitted by the COMEDK on 30.09.2015 in Sridevi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Hospital. The fee payable by the said 60 students who will be admitted by State Government will be 43 COMED-K fee fixed under the Consensual Agreement for Academic year 2016-17."
We have gone through the memo dated 23.06.2016.
The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India submits that they have serious objection for this matter. Firstly, as the matter is pending before this Court, any order to be passed by this Court shall be subject to the result of the said proceedings and secondly, KPCF/Comed-K have no more authority to allot seats. It has to be surrendered to the MCI to be allotted through NEET.
The second submission of the Medical Council of India is incorrect, since NEET is only an examination to determine the merit and KPCF has the right to enter into consensual agreement with the State Government with respect to regulating seat sharing, admission process & fee structure and surrender seats to be filled up through State as per Act 8/2006 as amended by Act 39/2015, The Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Determination of 44 Fee) Amendment Act, 2015. Therefore, the Medical Council of India has no locus standi to object the consensual agreement between the State Government and KPCF.
In the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the proposal given by the KPCF is fair and reasonable. Already students have lost one year. They cannot wait for the disposal before the Supreme Court or for any event to happen. Accordingly, this Court accords the requisite permission to accommodate all the 60 students in those ten Medical Colleges, who are members of the KPCF, without insisting on them to take the current KEA-CET/NEET exams.
The learned counsel for the students, who are appearing before the Court makes it very clear that the students have burnt their fingers and they have learnt a very big lesson and they will not commit any blunder in future. That only shows the helpless position in which the students and their parents are placed by all these great Institutions. In that view of the matter, we grant requisite permission to the Government to accommodate all the 60 45 students in the Member Institutions of KPCF, which they have mentioned, at the earliest, after following the requisite procedure and in accordance with law. As all these students had taken the C.E.T. examination 2015-2016 conducted by COMED-K and by virtue of their merit, they had been admitted to Sridevi Medical College, in the circumstances of the case, on the basis of the same merit, they have to be admitted to Members Institutions of KPCF and there is no necessity for them to take the C.E.T. 2016-2017.
In that view of the matter, we grant requisite permission to the Government to accommodate all the 60 students in the ten Colleges against the 60 additional seats surrendered by KPCF, at the earliest, after following the requisite procedure and in accordance with law. All other issues, which are mentioned in the proposal could be agitated during the course of hearing of the proceedings and shall be subject to the result of these petitions.
Sridevi Medical College is directed to return all the original documents, which are 46 with them, to the students to enable them to get admission in Colleges."
7. Once again, Medical Council of India carried the matter before the Apex Court against the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9252- 9308/2016 and on the interim application preferred by the Medical Council of India, the Apex Court on 28th September 2016 passed the following order:
"1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Upon perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that admission given to the students concerned to MBBS course was conditional. The fact with regard to conditional admission, which was dependent upon the final outcome of the Writ Petition, was duly informed to the students, as one can see from the admission letter issued to the students.
3. In the aforestated circumstances, the students concerned do not have any right to continue their studies in the same college or to get admission in any other college. Moreover, many of them have not passed the 47 requisite examination of NEET, which is very much necessary to get admission to MBBS course. Needless to say that it would be open to those students, who are qualified to get admission on the basis of their performance in NEET, to get admission elsewhere and they must have participated in the counseling.
4. In the aforestated circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court ought not to have given any direction for accommodating the students in any other college and therefore, the impugned order giving direction to the Government authorities to accommodate the students in other medical colleges is neither fair nor legal and therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
5. The interlocutory applications are accordingly disposed of and the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. The Apex Court set aside the aforesaid interim order dated 23.06.2016 passed by this Court. 48
9. Resultantly, the question of reallocation of students, no more remain. As the question of grant of prayer for reallocation of the students could not done pursuant to the above referred order passed by the Apex Court, naturally question of transmission of fees would also no more survive.
10. In view of the above, as such, it can be said that the prayers made in W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 & W.P.Nos.4677-78/2016 along with W.P.No.6776/2016 which were essentially for reallocation to the other Medical Colleges in COMED-K seats have become infructuous.
11. It further appears that since the aforesaid group of Writ Petitions was earlier connected with the W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015, they were heard together.
12. We may also record that W.P.No.6776/2016 has been preferred by one of the students namely Kum.S.R.Sneha for reallocation of herself to any other medical college and 49 since the same was also for the prayer of reallocation, it was tagged with W.P.Nos.4611-67/2016 & 4677-78/2016 and other matters and the same view deserves to be taken as may be in W.P.Nos.4611-67/2016 and 4677-78/2016.
13. It may also be recorded that since all the matters were being heard simultaneously, I.A.No.1/17 in W.P.Nos.4611-67/2016 & 4677-78/2016 as well as I.A.No.1/17 in W.P.No.6776/2016 have been preferred by the students for appropriate direction to the college/institution to refund the entire amount of the academic fees paid towards COMED-K seats along with exemplary damages, though such IA could/should have been in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015.
14. The Statement of Objections is filed on behalf of the college/institution in such I.As.
15. After the matters were heard for some time on behalf of the college/institution-Respondent No.7 herein, 50 wherein the liability to refund the fees is denied by the college, ultimately at para 20 it has been stated as under:-
"Notwithstanding the right of the petitioner not to refund the fees already collected and the right to collect the entire course fees, respondent No.7 being a charitable institution and being socially responsible, is willing to refund the part of the tuition fees/academic fees deducting 30% towards expenses and other charges. That the respondent No.7 having applied for the loan/over draft to the tune of Rs.10 Crores, the same is likely to be sanctioned by the consortium of banks. The copy of the said application dated 11.01.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R10. If the said amount is sanctioned, the respondent No.7 undertakes to refund the balance fee with 30% reduction immediately. If in case the said loan is not sanctioned, the respondent No.7 institution needs time from August 2017 till October 2017 to refund the said amount as the institution will start collecting fees from other students as and when it becomes due from August 2017."
51
16. We may record that the matters were heard for some time and thereafter, the additional proposal came to be filed on affidavits by Dr.M.R.Hulinayakar S/o late Rangappa, Chairman and by Dr.M.H.Raman S/o Dr.M.R.Hulinayakar, Secretary. In Paras 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, it has been declared as under:-
"5. I state that the above noted Writ Petition having come up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court today on 25/03/2017, in light of the oral directions issued to this respondent, notwithstanding the right of the institution to not to refund the fees already collected and the right to collect the entire course fee, I hereby make this proposal for repayment of the fees voluntarily subject to one condition that the petitioners shall not make any claim for alleged damages. Subject to the acceptance of the said condition by the petitioners, I state that the institution is willing to refund part of the Tuition fees/Academic fees deducting 30% towards expenses and other charges. Since this Hon'ble Court had already indicated that the question of quantum of deduction on the amount will be decided at a later stage, I state 52 that the schedule of repayment of the fees will be as under:-
TOTAL AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE INSTITUTION FROM EACH OF THE PETITIONERS AS ACADEMIC FEES:- Amount paid Amount paid Amount towards towards other paid Academic fees/Application towards Fees at Fees/University Caution COMED-K Fees Deposit Rs.4,25,000 Rs.79,000/- Rs.25,000
Total Academic Fees paid - Rs.5,04,000/- Caution Deposit with the institution- Rs.25,000/-
6. I state that the total Academic fees collected by the institution from each of the petitioners is Rs.5,04,000/- and that an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- was collected separately as "Caution deposit". I specifically state that the Institution has paid a sum of Rs.9,350 (Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Only) per student as university fee and the said amount is already remitted to the University. I state that all the petitioners herein have been issued with Medical Books which is worth Rs.9,350/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Only) which has been collected by all the petitioners. I state that the petitioners have 53 also paid an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the application fees. Hence, a total amount of Rs.20,200/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Only) is being deducted by the institution towards each of the students from the total amount already paid towards the 'Academic Fees'. Hence, I state that the institution is willing to refund a total sum of Rs.5,08,800/- to each of the petitioners with a reduction of 30% over the said amount; as mentioned in the statement of objections. Hence, total amount to be refunded by the institution for the petitioners herein is Rs.3,05,28,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Five Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Only) [Rs.5,08,800 x 60 = Rs.3,05,28,000].
7. I state that as per the oral directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the institution will pay initially 10% of the total amount, i.e., Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only] on or before 31/03/2017.
8. I state that the institution proposes to refund balance amount in 6 monthly installments starting from 30th April 2017 till 30th September 2017 subject to the quantum 54 of deduction over the overall amount due; to be decided by this Hon'ble Court before the said amount becomes due. I state that I have specifically prayed for deduction of 30% over the overall amount to be refunded to the petitioners.
9. I state that the total amount proposed to be refunded; subject to deduction of 30%; will be refunded immediately on approval of the loan by the consortium of banks. In case, the said loan is not sanctioned, the institution and the trust will abide by the schedule of refund as mentioned above."
17. The aforesaid shows that the institution is willing to refund the total amount of Rs.5,08,800/- to each of the petitioners with retention of 30%. As per the institution/college, the total amount to be refunded is Rs.3,05,28,000/-. But the college/institution is also willing to pay 10% of the total amount being Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2017 and the balance of the refund is to be made in six monthly installments starting from 55 30.04.2017 till 30.09.2017, on condition that the question of appropriation of deduction of 30% is to be decided by this Court and the students would not claim any damages.
18. It prima facie appears that when the college/institution has shown willingness to refund the fees starting with payment of 10% of the total amount and in six equal monthly installments, the same would be in the interest of all the students because the student will be in a position to utilize the money for the payment of fees or otherwise in the other institution for prosecuting their studies and it further appears that the question of reduction of 30% whether available to the college or not can be deferred for some time in any case prior to payment of last three installments.
19. On the aspects of damages claimed by the students and resisted by the college/institution, it prima facie appears to us that if a reasonable view is taken a question may arise for considering the matter for awarding the interest on compensatory basis but such aspects can also 56 be finally decided when this Court is to consider the question of finalization of the aspects for availability of deductions to the extent of 30% because at that stage this Court may examine the negligence if any on the part of the students or on the part of the college/institution coupled with the incidental circumstances including that of the deprivation or retention the amount of fees. However, the other aspects for these damages in addition to the interest on compensatory basis, in our prima facie view, cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings for the simple reason that for proving such damages on the basis of the individual circumstances of each student, a full-fledged evidence after permitting the party to examine and to cross examine the witnesses will be required to be undertaken which cannot be conveniently undertaken in the present proceedings. If in any case, this Court ultimately finds that any party to the proceedings has violated the Court orders, the matter may be considered by the Court for exemplary damages. But in our considered view, at this stage, we need not express any 57 view and suffice it to observe that a question may be required to be considered for awarding of interest on the compensatory basis if this Court finds it proper in addition to the principal amount of the fees, of course, subject to finalization of the aspects of deduction of 30%.
20. As such, so far as the refund of the hostel fees is concerned, we find that there is no prayer made in the interim application nor any direction is prayed. Hence, we did not express any view on the aforesaid aspect.
21. In view of the aforesaid, we find that by interim order if the students are to be made available the refund of the fees as per the schedule declared on behalf of the college, the same can be permitted but ofcourse the student concerned may be required to file an undertaking in this Court that he will redeposit the amount with the reasonable interest if it is directed by this Court since all such interim arrangement could be subject to the final order which may passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
58
22. Mr.Abhishek Malipatil, learned counsel for the college submits that the college may be permitted to withdraw W.P.Nos.41899-41900/2015. For such purpose, he tendered the memo contending that the petitions have become infructuous and he also submitted that respective Academic Year 2015-16 is over and hence, he may be permitted to withdraw those petitions also.
23. At the first, we may find that if the petitioners are desirous to withdraw the petitions, the Court may leniently grant permission. However, it appears that the present matter is not of such kind. The aspect of withdrawal can be considered simplicitor without considering the consequences thereof.
24. As observed earlier, after filing of the present petitions, on 28.09.2015, interim order came to be passed by this Court whereby the college was permitted to grant provisional permission to the petitioners to conduct the course for the academic year 2015-16 subject to further 59 orders as may be passed by this Court and the college was also permitted to admit the students ofcourse with the clarification that the admissions are subject to the result of these Writ Petitions. The fact remains that pursuant to the aforesaid interim order dated 28.09.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.41899-90/2015 about 60 students were granted admissions, the fees were collected by the college/institution and when they were prosecuting the studies, in the proceedings before the Apex Court, the aforesaid order was kept in abeyance by the Apex Court. Prima facie it can be said that the question of collection of fees based on the admission and subsequent non- continuation of study by the student concerned etc., all have arisen from the orders of this Court dated 28.09.2015. It is hardly required to be stated that no litigant should be allowed to earn any premium on account of the orders passed by this Court. As it is if the orders passed by this Court are stayed by the Apex Court, in normal circumstances, the restitution is to follow which may result into refund of the fees fully but since it has 60 been contended on behalf of the college/institution that they are entitle to appropriate or retain 30% of the fees and refund will be made only to the extent of 70% and when the students have also claimed for the damages, but as per the prima facie observations made by this Court, the case may be considered only to the extent of interest on compensatory basis. We find that as all aforesaid situations are yet to be examined and to be decided by this Court withdrawal of W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015 should not be permitted. Further at the time of disposal of the W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015, this Court will have to conclude on the aforesaid aspects which have originated from the orders of this Court and therefore, it could be expected for this Court to adjudicate and redress the situation arisen on account of the interim order passed by this Court.
25. In our view said IAs for refund of fees and other incidental aspects have arisen on account of the interim order dated 28.09.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015 and therefore, such IAs for 61 refund of fees shall be considered in W.P.Nos.41899- 900/2015 since in any case W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 and 6776/2016 as observed earlier by us can be said having become infructuous. In any case, the papers of all the connected matters may be required for adjudication of aspects in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015 and 6776/2016.
26. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we inclined to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) All the petitioners of W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 and 6776/2016 are ordered to be impleaded as parties in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015 and Mr.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel shall carry out necessary amendment. Mr.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.K.N.Subba Reddy appears for all the aforesaid parties and therefore, no further steps are required to be taken in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015.62
(ii) I.A.No.1/17 filed in W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 as well as I.A.No.1/17 filed in W.P.No.6776/2016 shall be treated as filed in W.P.Nos.41899-
900/2015.
(iii) IAs, the contentions and pleadings therein shall be treated as in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015.
(iv) Dr.M.R.Hulinayakar S/o late Rangappa, Chairman
and the Managing Trustee as well as
Dr.M.H.Raman S/o M.R.Hulinayakar, Secretary of the trust running college/institution, shall deposit the amount of Rs.3,05,28,000/- with this Court in the following manner:
a. Rs.30,00,000/- being 10% of the total amount on or before 31.03.2017.
b. The remaining amount shall be in six installments each of Rs.45,88,000/- on or before the end of each month starting from April 2017 and ending in September 2017.63
(v) The amount which may be deposited by the college shall be divided into 60 and the each student shall be permitted to withdraw the proportionate amount [1/60] on his/her filing an undertaking that
(a) the withdrawal is subject to finalisation of aspects by this Court as to whether the college should be permitted to retain 30% of the amount of fees or not
(b) the student concerned shall redeposit the amount with the interest, if it is so directed by this Court within 60 days from the date of passing of the order by this Court
(c) the student will not claim any damages except the aspect of interest on the amount fees which is to be finalized by this Court together with the question of retention of 30% of the amount.
(vi) It is made clear that aforesaid interim arrangement are subject to final order which may 64 be passed by this Court in IA's with W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015.
(vii) Accordingly, W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016, 4677-
78/2016 and 6776/2016 shall stand disposed of with further clarification that the rights and contentions of the parties arising there from for quantification of the refund of the fees is to be filed in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015, with IA's therein.
(viii) The withdrawal of the amount shall be permitted by the office to each student concerned separately only after such respective student files his separate declaration in terms of the aforesaid order.
(ix) I.A.No.2/17 shall not require to be considered since I.A.No.1/17 is to be considered in W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015. Office shall keep the record of W.P.Nos.4611-4667/2016 and 65 6776/2016 for convenient disposal of W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015.
(x) If any of the student fails to give the undertaking on or before 24th of April 2017, it would be open to the college/institution to move this Court for modification of condition for proportionate reduction of the amount to be deposited as per this order.
(xi) Let W.P.Nos.41899-900/2015 together with the aforesaid I.As.1/17 for refund of fees be listed for final disposal on 8th June 2017.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN/Prs*