The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed seeking a refund of fees deposited at the time of first counseling held that fees deposited by a student at the time of counselling are quid pro quo for studies imparted to such student by the institution and in case a student resigns from the allotment made in the first counselling itself, clearly no studies have been imparted to such a student and therefore permitting such a College to retain fees deposited by a student would, in fact, amount to unjust enrichment.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- and security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited at the time of first counselling for allotment of a medical college to the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the undergraduate programme in the year 2022 and was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. It is submitted that at the same time, the petitioner was also participating in the counselling pertaining to NIMS University, Jaipur under the general category but prior to the conclusion of counselling in Jaipur, F.H. Medical College, Agra was allotted to the petitioner in the first counselling. Further, it was submitted that subsequently on 26.11.2022, the petitioner was allotted NIMS University, Jaipur in the second counselling. In the intervening period, the petitioner submitted their resignation with regard to the first counselling vide letter dated 13.11.2022 on the ground that the petitioner was dissatisfied with the College allotted and sought a refund of the fees already deposited by the petitioner. Further reliance was placed on paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to submit that the petitioner is entitled to a refund in terms thereof.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent refuted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that the petitioner in fact submitted her resignation on 17.11.2022. It was submitted that the petitioner's case instead of being covered by paragraph 7(a) of the aforesaid Government Order is in fact covered by the second Proviso to paragraph 7(a) of the Government Order.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to Paragraph 7 of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022 and noted that there is a provision for refund of fees in case a student participates in the counselling in the first round but subsequently forsakes the seat that has been allotted. While paragraph 7(a) states that such resignation from the College allotted in the first counselling is permissible subject to a student being allocated a Medical College in the second counselling such a fact is required to be indicated specifically in the resignation letter and by annexing a certificate regarding his allotment made in the second counselling.
The Court observed that the aforesaid mandatory condition of annexing the certificate regarding allotment made in the second counselling can be read down as a directory in nature since the provision of refund is a beneficial provision. The court opined that fees deposited by a student are a quid pro quo for studies imparted to such a student. This is more so, in the present case where subsequent rounds of counselling including mop-up rounds of counselling have taken place.
The court stated that in the present case, the petitioner had substantially complied with the conditions for refund laid down in paragraph 7 of Government Order dated 21.10.2022, the Court held that “provisions of paragraph 7(a) of Government Order dated 21.10.2022 have been specifically inserted so as not to permit unjust enrichment by a College for retaining fees without imparting studies to a student.”
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to refund the permissible amount as per 7(a) of the Government Order dated 21.10.2022 to the petitioner.
Case Title: Shivangi Sharma vs. State of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Mathur
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 6606 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Prakash Dwivedi, Mr. Ashish Kumar Dwivedi
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C., Abhinav Trivedi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
