Ms K R Divyashree vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ms K R Divyashree vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2680

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION NO.47380/2017(EDN-Res)

BETWEEN :

MS.K.R.Divyashree,
D/o.Sri.K.Range Gowda,
Aged about 22 years,
Resident of Kondenalu village,
Bagivalu Post, Hassan District.           ...PETITIONER

      (By Sri.Tulsi Kumar, B.N., Adv.)

AND :

1.    The State of Karnataka,
      By its Secretary,
      Ministry of Medical Education,
      M.S.Building,
      Bangalore - 560 001.

2.    The Executive Director,
      The Karnataka Examination
      Authority, Sampige Road,
      18th Cross, Bangalore-560 012.

3.    The Principal,
      Oxford College of Engineering,
      Bommanahalli, Hosur Road,
      Bangalore - 560 068.               ...RESPONDENTS

      (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1,
          Sri.N.K.Ramesh, Adv. for R2)
                         . . . .
                            -2-




     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
respondent No.3 Institute to return the Certificate and
the Marks Cards furnished by the petitioner without
any pre-condition and without insisting for any
payment.

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:


                       ORDER

Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.2. He is permitted to file Vakalath in the Registry within four weeks.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 - Institute to return the Certificate and the Marks Card submitted by the petitioner without any pre-condition. The petitioner in that regard is seeking issue of direction to respondent No.3 - Institution to refund the amount of Rs.49,500/- and Rs.17,000/- paid at the time of admission.

3. The petitioner having completed her Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering had thereafter -3- secured entrance for the Engineering Course in Computer Science through the Common Entrance Test(CET). The petitioner was allotted a seat in the respondent No.3 - Institution. The petitioner had joined and paid the initial fees and further submitted the necessary documents to pursue the Course. The petitioner thereafter not being in a position to pursue her Education as she was unable to reside in Bangalore due to her mother's health, is stated to have discontinued the Course. The Marks Card and other testimonials submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 - College has not been returned to the petitioner. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. In a normal circumstance the college no doubt would have the right to seek for the monetary claim if the seat has remained vacant and due to which the college has suffered any loss. In any event insofar as the Marks Card and other testimonials submitted by the student, the College cannot have any lien and hold the -4- student to ransom. Therefore, insofar as that aspect of the matter, the positive mandamus would be to direct the respondent to return the documents. Insofar as the refund of the amount sought by the petitioner, at this juncture this Court would not be justified in directing respondent No.3 - Institute to refund the money since the aspects as to whether the seat has remained vacant or as to whether subsequently any other student has been admitted, are all issues which may require appropriate consideration. This Court in any event does not have the benefit of such details as respondent No.3

- Institute has not chosen to appear. Therefore, insofar as that aspect of the matter, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3

- Institute seeking refund of the amount as well.

The respondent No.3 - Institute while taking note of such representation of the petitioner shall keep in view this aspect of the matter and if any other student has been admitted in place of the petitioner to the course, in such event it shall take a decision to refund the amount. On the other hand if no admission has -5- been made and the seat has remained vacant, the details of the same may be furnished to the petitioner so that if any consideration in any other forum is required, the petitioner would have the liberty to agitate the same.

However, insofar as the return of the documents, respondent No.3 - Institute is directed to return the documents submitted by the petitioner within three weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to respondent No.3 - Institute.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court