Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ajay Jayakumar Nair vs Medical Council Of India on 23 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
WP No. 24121 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO. 24121 OF 2018 (EDN-MED ADM)
BETWEEN:
SRI. AJAY JAYAKUMAR NAIR,
S/O. SRI. JAYAKUMAR CHERRAT,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT "SHRI JANI", 23, 24,
GKS AVENUE, VADAVALLI,
THONDAMUTHUR ROAD,
VADAVALLI, VEERAKERALAM POST,
COIMBATORE (D),
TAMILNADU STATE - 641 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location: HIGH 1. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA POCKET-14, SECTOR-8,
DWARAKA - PHASE - 1,
NEW DELHI-110 071,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. THE SRI DEVARAJ URS ACADEMY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
WP No. 24121 of 2018
HC-KAR
RESEARCH DEEMED UNIVERSITY,
TAMAKA, KOLAR - 563 103,
KARNATAKA STATE, INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
SRI DEVARAJ URS MEDICAL COLLEGE,
P.B.NO.7, TAMAKA,
KOLAR-563 101,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES,
(MEDICAL EXAMINATION),
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110011.
(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE IMPLEADED AS
PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.10.2024)
6. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA,
4TH 'T' BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
(AMENDED CAUSE TITLE IMPLEADED AS
PER COURT ORDER DATED 08.09.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4;
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, CGC FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2017 VIDE NO.
DMC/KLR/STS/2050/2017-18 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT HEREIN IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-R; CALL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
WP No. 24121 of 2018
HC-KAR
FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ADMISSION OF UG MBBS
STUDENTS IN THE FOURTH RESPONDENT COLLEGE UNDER NRI
QUOTA AND ALSO THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SURRENDER
OF SEATS TO MCC 2017 FOR MEDICAL SEAT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The petitioner took admission in MBBS course under
the NRI quota in the respondent No.3-Institution, a
Deemed University after undertaking NEET-2017 Entrance
examination, for admission in MBBS course. According to
the petitioner, the petitioner's mother who was an NRI lost
her job in Saudi Arabia, and the petitioner was not in a
position to pay the fee for further studies. The petitioner
had paid fee of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven
Lakhs Only) as an NRI student for the first year of MBBS
Course.
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
HC-KAR
2. As the petitioner was not in a position to pay further
fees for second year and onwards, the petitioner wrote a
letter to the respondent No.3-Institution on 30.08.2017
requesting them to cancel his admission and refund the
fee. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3-
Institution had taken admission against the vacant seat
which was caused as a result of the cancellation of the
admission of the petitioner in the Institution. The
submission is that the respondent No.3-Institution has not
suffered any loss because of cancellation of the admission
by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may direct the
respondent No.3-Institution to refund the fee of
Rs.27,00,000/- paid by the petitioner along with the
interest.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3-
Institution however submits that the respondent No.3-
Institution being a Deemed University, the seats in the
medical course are allotted by the Medical Council of India
(MCI) under 15% of All India Quota. The last date for
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
HC-KAR
admission as per the schedule published by the Medical
Council of India was 31.08.2017.
4. The respondent No.3-Institution has uploaded the
names of all the students admitted in the respondent
No.3-Institution on MCI website which would also include
the name of the petitioner as an NRI student. The
respondent No.3-Institution cannot admit the students on
its own. The students were to be allotted by MCI after
counselling. No student could be admitted without
counselling. When all the seats in the respondent No.3-
Institution were filled up by admitting the students
forwarded by the MCI after counselling, there was no
question of taking admission against the seat which
became vacant because of the cancellation of the
admission of the petitioner on his request. The submission
is that one seat of NRI quota in MBBS course remained
vacant for 4½ years, and the respondent No.3-Institution
lost the fee for 3½ years. Infact, it is the respondent
No.3-Institution which should have claimed damages from
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
HC-KAR
the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for any refund
of the fees.
5. Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner however, submits that when the
petitioner has sought cancellation of his admission vide the
letter dated 30.08.2017, and the Supreme Court extended
the date of admission till 07.09.2017, nothing prevented
the respondent No.3-Institution to intimate the factum of
cancellation of admission of the petitioner on his request
for including that seat for further round of counselling to
be conducted by the MCI. He therefore, submits that the
respondent No.3-Institution was responsible for not filling
the seat which got vacant because of the cancellation of
the petitioner's admission and for which the petitioner
cannot be held responsible. He therefore, submits that
the respondent No.3-Institution is liable to refund the fees
along with the interest.
6. We have considered the submissions.
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
HC-KAR
7. Sri K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner has not been able to show us any
provision in the prospectus or the MCI Examination
Admission Rules which would entitle a student to claim
refund of the fees after he has taken admission and
deposited the fee, and thereafter he sought cancellation of
his admission.
8. We have taken the consistent view in two judgments
of this Court in W.P.No.18859/2024 dated 31.07.2025 and
in W.P.No.12699/2025 dated 28.08.2025 against such a
claim. While considering the prospectus of the Karnataka
Examination Authority, we have held that once a candidate
has been admitted to a professional course after the
counselling, and if he seeks cancellation of admission, he
is not entitled for refund of the fee. In absence of any
provision for any refund of fee and when there is no
evidence to suggest that the respondent No.3-Institution
has admitted any of the student against the vacant seat
NC: 2025:KHC:38212-DB
HC-KAR
caused by the petitioner's cancellation of admission, we
are of the view that, no such mandamus can be issued to
the respondent No.3-Institution to refund the fee.
9. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
Karnataka Fee Regulatory Committee for his grievance and
if he does so, the said Committee should examine the case
of the petitioner in accordance with law independently
without being influenced by any of the observations in the
order passed by us.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
DHA
