Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Institute Of Technology vs Admission Overseeing Committee on 4 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
WP No. 34826 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 34826 OF 2017 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
K.R.ROAD, V.V.PURAM,
BENGALURU-560 004,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NISHANTH A.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADMISSION OVERSEEING COMMITTEE,
2ND FLOOR, KEA BUILDING,
18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD,
Digitally signed by
VASANTHAKUMARY MALLESHWARAM,
BK
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU-560 012
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA
2. MS. NITHYA S,
D/O SHEKAR S
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/A NO.685, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
SRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 050.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S. SHEKAR, GPA HOLDER R-2-IN-PERSON)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
WP No. 34826 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.7.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Nishanth for the petitioner
and learned advocate Mr.N.K.Ramesh for respondent No.1.
2. By filing the present writ petition, petitioner-Institute
has prayed to set aside order dated 13.07.2017 and notice dated
28.07.2017.
2.1. The order dated 13.07.2017 is passed by respondent
No.1-Admission Overseeing Committee requiring petitioner-
Institute to refund the amount of Rs.23,850/- to respondent No.2-
student which was collected towards first year B.E. course fees and
Rs.68,850/-. The said fees were collected for the entire course. The
Committee directed to refund the amount with 18% interest from
the date of payment till refund is made.
2.2 Impugned notice dated 28.07.2017 is consequential
notice to the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2017, whereby petitioner-
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
Institute was put to notice that the refund shall have to be made as
per the order dated 13.07.2017 within seven days.
3. Respondent No.2-student was admitted in the first year
B.E.course (Electronics & Communication). Thereafter, the student
appeared in the Casual Vacancy Counselling round conducted by
the Karnataka Examinations Authority. In that process, respondent
No.2-student was allotted a seat in the M.B.B.S. course.
Respondent No.2 - student addressed a letter to management of
petitioner-Institute seeking return of the original documents as she
had got admission on the medical seat.
3.1 It appears that respondent No.2 - student approached
respondent No.1 - Committee. Complaints were made by the
student and she asked for refund of the amount of fees.
Respondent No.1-Committee passed order requiring petitioner-
Institute to refund the amount of fees paid to respondent No.2-
student.
4. Learned advocate for petitioner-Institute submitted that
the directions issued by respondent No.1 - Committee to refund the
fees were beyond the powers of the Committee. It was submitted
that respondent No.1 - Committee could, at the most, only to make
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
recommendations to the State Government as per the Karnataka
Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. It was sought to be contended
that respondent No.1 - Committee has no statutory authority in law
and could not have issued the order and the notice.
5. Under Section 5(8) of the aforesaid Act, respondent
No.1- Committee is empowered to hear complaints with regard to
admission in contravention of the procedure laid down by the
Committee. It may make recommendation upon obtaining evidence
and explanation in relation to the contravention alleged. The
Committee may also direct the University concerned to levy and
collect fine and it has also powers to declare the admission dehors
the merit. In other words, all complaints regarding to the
admissions and contravention of the proceedings of admission are
within the preview of the Committee.
5.1 In the present case, it is admitted that respondent No.2
- student, on her own right, could secure the seat in the M.B.B.S
course in the counselling process. Initially Rs.23,850/- was paid
towards fees for the first year by respondent No.2 - student and
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
thereafter, Rs.68,850/- was paid towards fees for the entire year to
the petitioner - Institute.
5.2 The stand taken by petitioner-Institute in calling in
question the direction of respondent No.1-Committee to refund the
fees has been that the admissions were over on a particular date
and because of respondent No.2 - student leaving the college, the
seat remained vacant; therefore, she was not entitled for refund of
the fees. It could not be countenanced.
5.3 The Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of
Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and others
[(2003) 6 SCC 697] observed that the college has no right to
demand the college fees/tuition fees for the future years and
directed the college to return the original certificate/testimonials
submitted by petitioner-Institute before it.
5.3.1 The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 8 of
the Islamic Academy (supra) that if an institution feels that any
particular student may leave in midstream, then it may require that
student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the
whole course would be received by the institute even if the student
left in midstream and if fees are collected in advance, the fees for
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
that semester/year could be used by the institution. It was further
stated that the balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits
and the same shall be paid to the students with interest earned on
the amount.
5.4. The decision of the Supreme Court in Islamic
Academy (supra) was relied on and referred to by this High Court
in Miss.Smruthy B.S vs. D.A.Pandu Memorial and another in
W.P.No.13792 of 2009 decided on 18.03.2014. The facts of the
case in Miss.Smruthy (supra) were similar to one on hand. In that
case, the petitioner after passing second year PUC examination
appeared for the Common Entrance Test conducted by the
Karnataka Examinations Authority. Thereafter, considering the
ranking obtained by her in CET, she could not get a seat in
M.B.B.S. course, however, she secured a Government seat in
B.D.S course. After paying the fees payable for one year, she
joined first year B.D.S. course and submitted all her original
testimonials. She demanded refund of fees from the college.
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
5.5 This Court, with reference to the propositions laid down
in Islamic Academy (supra) by the Supreme Court stated thus in
paragraph 11, which reads as under,
"On conjoint reading of paras-7 and 8 of the
Judgment, we are of the view that an Education
Institution can only charge prescribed fee for one
semester/year. If an Institution feels that any
particular student may leave in midstream then
bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees for the
whole course would be received by the
Institution, even if the student left in the
midstream."
5.5.1 It was held that for the entire course in advance, the
college cannot collect the fees. The said petition was dismissed
and the relief was granted to the petitioner refunding the fees.
6. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, in the
order passed by respondent No.1-Committee on 13.07.2017, it is
mentioned that the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, by
its notification dated December, 2016 has issued guidelines as to
the remittance and refund of fees. It was observed by respondent
No.1-Committee that petitioner-Institute was bound by the same,
further that Para 4.2 of the said notification states that no institution
NC: 2024:KHC:9459-DB
shall charge the fees in advance except for the semester or the
year in which a student is to engage in academic activities.
6.1 It was further stated that the collection of advance fees
for entire programme of study or for more than one semester/year
in which a student is enrolled is strictly prohibited. It was also
stated that if the students opt to withdraw from the programme of
study, the institution shall refund the amount to such students who
are entitled.
7. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the
challenge made by the petitioner - Institute to the impugned order
and notice issued by respondent No.1-Committee requiring the
petitioner-Institute to refund the fees stands meritless. Hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
