Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mandava Krishna Kautilya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 October, 2023

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                   WRIT APPEAL No.847 of 2023

Mandava Krishna Kautilya,
S/o.M.Prabhakara Rao,
Aged 27 years, Occ: Student,
R/o.3-68, IL TD Colony, Kotha Peta (Rural),
Prakasam District - 523 157.

                                       ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Health, Medical and Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh & two others.

                                       ... Respondents / Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. V. Venkata Naga Raju

Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare

- R1

Mr. G. V. Rama Krishna

- R2

Mr. G. Vijaya Kumar, Standing Counsel

- R3 HCJ & RRR, J

Dt.:13.10.2023

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters

Patent has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated

27.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.13873 of 2023. The writ Court, by

virtue of the judgment and order impugned directed the return of

all the original documents of the petitioner lying with the NRI

Medical College, Guntur / respondent No.2 herein, subject to the

payment of the outstanding fee in accordance with the schedule

prescribed in the said judgment.

2. It would be beneficial to briefly state the material facts in the

background of which the present controversy has arisen:

The petitioner came to be admitted in the NRI Medical College

in Guntur District in the year, 2015, for the Under-Graduate

M.B.B.S. Course. The total tuition fee payable by the petitioner was

Rs.56,42,600/-. The basis of the controversy before us is that,

whereas the college claims that an amount of Rs.41,41,445/- is due

and payable to it, the petitioner/appellant herein claims that the

entire amount has since been paid. With a view to support and

buttress the case of the petitioner that the amount stands paid in

entirety, two payment memos were relied upon before the writ HCJ & RRR, J

Court dated 03.12.2019 for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and dated

08.04.2020 for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The factum of receipt of

the aforementioned amount covered under the two payment memos

was seriously denied by the respondent College.

3. In the reply affidavit filed by the NRI Medical

College/respondent No.2 herein, it was alleged that the two receipts

on which reliance was being placed by the petitioner were forged

and fabricated and that the same had never been issued.

3.1 With a view to show that the memos were forged and

fabricated, the following facts were highlighted:

a. The serial number referred to in the receipt dated 03.12.2019

and the serial number which was maintained by the respondent

College were completely different. It is stated that the serial number

which is contained on the receipt reflecting payment of

Rs.25,00,000/- is 2675 which is, in fact, the serial number issued

for Rs.15,000/- to a candidate namely Mussinuri Venkatesh, which

receipt contains the date as 21.11.2019. Further, as per the

records, as on 03.12.2019, the date on which the alleged receipt

was issued, the actual serial number of the receipt book contained

the serial number 2800.

HCJ & RRR, J

b. In regard to the 2nd receipt dated 08.04.2020 for an alleged

amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, the stand of the College was that it had

stopped issuing manual receipts and was substituted with "system

generated receipts" which was in vogue from 01.04.2020.

c. That the receipts dated 03.12.2019 and 08.04.2020 did not

reflect the mode and method of payment whether the same was by

cash, by cheque or by bank draft. Further, that Section 269ST of the

Income Tax Act, 1961, placed restrictions on receiving more than

Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and that ever since the said provisions came

into force in the year, 2017, the respondent College had not

received cash in excess of Rs.2,00,000/-.

d. That the petitioner's father had addressed a letter to the

college on 17.01.2020 informing the college that the entire dues

would be cleared by 15.02.2020 and requested the college to permit

the petitioner to write the exams and that in the said

communication, no mention at all was made as regards the

substantial payment of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The writ Court having considered the entire issue came to a

conclusion that the petitioner had not approached the Court with

clean hands and attempted to prejudice the Court to achieve its HCJ & RRR, J

objective to avoid paying the remaining tuition fee amount.

However, the writ court on humanitarian grounds, with a view to

protect the future of the petitioner, directed the petitioner/his

father to pay the remaining balance amount in two instalments, out

of which, Rs.20,00,000/- was to be paid within a period of two

weeks from the date of the judgment and the remaining amount was

to be paid within a period of three months thereafter by submitting

a bank guarantee for the said amount in favour of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view

expressed by the writ Court was unsustainable in law inasmuch as

the direction to release the documents could not have been made

subject to the depositing of the outstanding fee. Reference and

reliance in this regard was placed upon D.Vaishnavi Vs. State of

Telangana1; Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma Vs. The Joint Secretary,

Department of Higher Education, New Delhi and Others2; and

S.Muthukamatchi Vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna

University, Chennai and Others3, to emphasize the point that the

certificates cannot legally be retained by the college on any ground

(2020) SCC Online TS 89

W.P.No.6722 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022

W.P.(MD) No.14394 of 2012, dated 18.12.2012 HCJ & RRR, J

whatsoever especially on account of non-payment of fees by the

petitioner and that the writ Court ought to have directed the college

to release the documents irrespective of the fact whether the fees

had been paid or not assuming the assertion of the college

authorities were ultimately held to be correct.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record. Clearly, the assertion of the appellant with

regard to payment of the entire fee to the college has seriously been

not only disputed but has even been challenged by the respondent

No.2 who claims that the basis for such a claim is untenable and the

receipts dated 03.12.2019 and 08.04.2020 are nothing but forged

and fabricated.

7. The additional affidavit filed by the college authorities

supporting the theory of fabrication of receipts as enumerated in

the preceding paragraph hereinabove also appears to be not

entirely without any basis. While it may be true, that the college

authorities legally cannot withhold the documents on account of

non-payment of fee, yet the powers vested in this court under

Article 226 are discretionary and can be refused to be exercised

where it finds that the petitioner had not approached the Court HCJ & RRR, J

with clean hands. Reference in this regard can be placed on the

judgment of the Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs.

Jagannath and Others4, wherein, the Apex Court deprecated

unscrupulous persons who use the court process as a convenient

lever to retain the illegal gains obtained by them indefinitely and it

was held that a person whose case is based on falsehood had no

right to approach the Court and could be summarily thrown out at

any stage of litigation. It was further held "a litigant who

approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents

executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds

a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then

he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the

opposite party".

In A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh and Others5, the Apex Court held:

"26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception

with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by

taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss

of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they

are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act

(1994) 1 SCC 1

(2007) 4 SCC 221 HCJ & RRR, J

which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam.

The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be stretched to the

extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of

oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants."

8. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the

aforementioned judgments, we are unable to convince ourselves

that the petitioner would have paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on

03.12.2019 when the petitioner's father by virtue of

communication dated 02.12.2019 had expressed his inability to

pay the fee on account of his money having got stuck due to lack of

sales in the construction business and further expressed his

intention to sell land and arrange the requisite resource by the end

of January. By virtue of the said communication, the petitioner's

father had clearly expressed his desire to clear all outstanding dues

ending January, 2019, and therefore had made a request to permit

the petitioner to take the exams.