Madras High Court
M.Priyadarshini vs The Principal Secretary/ ... on 28 October, 2022
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
M.Priyadarshini ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner
Director of Technical Education
Chennai-25.
2. The Registrar
Anna University
Chennai-600025.
3. The Chairman
Vel Group of Institution
Avadi, Chennai-62.
4. The Principal,
Vel High Tech Sri Rangarajan Sakunthala
Engineering College
60, Avadi-Alamathi Road, Morai Village,
Vellanur Post, Ambattur Taluk,
Tiruvellore District-600062. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent herein vide Proceedings
No.29119/ TAC/2009 dated 14.9.2015 and quash the same as null and void
and against the basic principles of natural justice and consequently directing
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
the respondents 3 and 4 herein to refund the sum of Rs.5,00,500/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs and Five Hundred only) along with due interest till the date of
realization payable by them within the stipulated period prescribed by this
Honourable Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thangavel
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jaya Prakash [R1]
Government Advocate.
Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaran [R2]
No Appearance [R3 & R4]
ORDER
The order dated 14.09.2015, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner
for refund of tuition fee in under challenge in the present writ petition. The
writ petitioner joined the 4th respondent college in the year 2008 and
completed her 1st year in Electronic and Communication Engineering
course. She attended the Anna University examination held on 23.06.2009
at 4th respondent college. At the time of entering the examination hall, the
petitioner was in possession of money purse in which she had kept chits of
the paper with regard to the subject matter of the examination for easy
reference and forgot to remove the same from the purse because of the
examination tension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that her explanation was not
accepted and thereafter she discontinued the course. She has earlier filed a
writ petition in W.P.No.16444 of 2009 before this Court with a prayer to
direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders with a specific direction to
the respondents 3 and 4 therein to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,500/-as claimed
by the petitioner in her representation. Pursuant to the said direction, the
impugned order has been passed.
3. The order impugned indicates that the case of the petitioner on
merits was considered. The Directorate of Technical Education finally relied
on two different judgments passed by the Madurai Bench of High Court of
Madras in respect of the same college regarding two different candidates,
reading as follows:
1. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court passed
an Order dated: 09.03.2012 in W.P.(MD) No. 3977 of 2009
and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2009 filed by Selvi.R.Gowthami that
"Once a student is leaving in the middle of the course, the
College will not be in a position to admit any student and
consequently, the College undoubtedly will lose the
revenue and in order to compensate such loss they have to
collect the fees for the remaining years only from those
students, who left the College in the middle of the course.
By leaving the College in the middle of the course, the
petitioner had not only prevented another person’s change
in getting the admission into the B.E. course and also
made the College to suffer the loss. Therefore, the College
is right in collecting the fees from the petitioner in respect
of 3rd and 4th year and consequently, there is no illegality
in such action".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
2. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court passed
an Order dated: 21.06.2013 in W.P.(MD) No. 8743 of 2013
that "the College cannot have a lien over the Educational
Certificates of the petitioner and that the condition
imposed on the prospectus that the entire fees for the
remaining years of study should be paid cannot be
accepted".
4. As per G.O.Ms.No.1258, Education Department dated 21.10.1985,
it has been ordered as follows:
“The tuition fee and special fee shall not be
refunded to the students who leave the Engineering
Colleges after two months from the date of their joining.
The tuition fee and special fee shall not also refunded to
these students who discontinue their Engineering courses
for any other reason".
5. When it is categorically ruled that the students who left the
Engineering Colleges after two months from the date of their joining, they
are not entitled to get refund of fees. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
the refund of fee. Further the petitioner has completed the 1st year course
and during the 1st year examination, she was caught red handed by Anna
University Invigorator for certain malpractice during the examination. An
enquiry was conducted and thereafter the petitioner disconued the course.
The petitioner was not able to established that even as per the prospectus
she is entitled for refund of the fees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
6. This being the factum establish, the relief as such sought for refund
of fees cannot be considered. After completion of one year of engineering
course, the petitioner is not entitled for the refund and furthermore, she
discontinued the course on account of certain malpractice. Thus, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
28.10.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
shr/ska
To
1. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner
Director of Technical Education
Chennai-25.
2. The Registrar
Anna University
Chennai-600025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
shr/ska
.
W.P.No.15372 of 2016
28.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
