[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

The Dean vs P.Karthikeyan on 8 April, 2026

                                                                        W.A.No.2674 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED:    08.04.2026

                                                   CORAM :

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                    AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

                                             W.A.No.2674 of 2024
                                          and C.M.P.No.19342 of 2024

                     1.The Dean
                       Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute,
                       Kelambakkam, Chennai.

                     2.The Registrar
                       Chettinad Hospital and Research Institute,
                       Kelambakkam, Chennai.

                                                                       Appellants

                                                       Vs

                     1.P.Karthikeyan
                       S/o.R.Pattusamy,
                       No.169, Thenkuthu, Anna Nagar,
                       Vanathirayapuram Post, Kurijipadi Taluk,
                       Vadalur – 607 303,
                       Cuddalore District.

                     2.The Director
                       MGR Medical University,
                       Guindy, Chennai.

                                                                       Respondents


                     ______________
                     Page 1 of 11




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.A.No.2674 of 2024

                     PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
                     the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20459 of 2022,
                     dated 3.6.2024.


                                       For Appellants:     Mr.M.S.Krishnan
                                                           Senior Counsel
                                                           for Mr.T.Balaji

                                       For Respondents: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
                                                        for Mr.M.Ragul Kousik
                                                        for R1

                                                           Mr.M.Sivavarthanan
                                                           for R2


                                                         JUDGMENT

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated

3.6.2024 passed in W.P.No.20459 of 2022, respondent Nos.1 and 2

therein have filed the present writ appeal.

3. The first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition

seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellants and the third

respondent herein to issue his MBBS degree certificate along with

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

transfer certificate and provisional certificate, as he has successfully

completed the degree in the month of February, 2019. By the

impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and

issued the following direction:

“6. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to return the original certificates of the petitioner which were produced at the time of his admission to the MBBS course, MBBS degree certificate and transfer certificate forthwith. However, it is open to the first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the break fees, if any, as against the petitioner and the period of pendency of this writ petition may be excluded while calculating the limitation.”

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the first

respondent is a 2007-2008 batch MBBS student, who during normal

course ought to have completed his MBBS course in 4½ years i.e.,

during 2012, however, he took 12 years to complete his course before

he could go on to complete his CRRI training which he completed in

April, 2020.

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submitted

______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the fact that

candidates pursuing MBBS, in the event of failing/not qualifying the

semester/annual examination, will have to put in extra study/training,

which is called break study, for which they further utilise the facilities

of the educational institution until they clear the examinations. The

learned Single Judge failed to note that it is the first respondent's

failure which prolonged the duration of his course and all along during

this extended period he had been utilising the facilities, infrastructure

and value added services of the appellant institution for which he is

bound to pay the study/tuition fees.

4.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants added that

the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that

owing to the first respondent's failure to clear the course on time or at

least within the span of time, the appellant institution was forced to

pay the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University a

sum of Rs.9.00 lakh as affiliation fee and Rs.6.00 lakh as

administration fee, totalling to Rs.15.00 lakh.

4.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that

while the first respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction seeking to ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

return the certificates, the learned Single Judge ought to have

permitted to return the original certificates produced at the time of

admission to MBBS course and not the MBBS degree certificate which

is the property of the appellant institution.

4.5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that the

certificates on completion of course will be issued only if all dues to the

institution are duly paid and the first respondent is obliged to pay the

break fee for his overstay in the course. Thus, he prayed for setting

aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent

submitted that the appellant college is a Deemed University and the

first respondent had joined the college and had paid fees for 4½ years

to the tune of Rs.14.00 lakh. After completion of his course, the first

respondent was not issued his degree certificate, transfer certificate

and course completion certificate on the ground that he had failed to

pay the break fees. Learned counsel would submit that the learned

Single Judge, upon appreciation of facts and applying the law, rightly

directed to return the original certificates produced by the first

respondent at the time of admission as also the MBBS degree ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

certificate and the transfer certificate. Therefore, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The main submission of the appellants is that because of the

first respondent's retention in the course for long period and all along

during this extended period he had been utilising the facilities and

infrastructure of the appellant institution, the first respondent is bound

to pay break fees and the learned Single Judge ought not to have

directed the appellant institution to return the certificates as prayed for

by the first respondent.

8. It appears and as rightly observed by the learned Single

Judge that though the first respondent had completed his course in the

year 2020, he was allowed to continue his internship with the

appellant institution.

9. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court held that

educational certificates are not marketable commodities and, ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

therefore, they cannot be withheld. Referring to the decisions of the

Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal.M v. The

State of Tamil Nadu1, held thus:

“2. The appellants / writ petitioners had undergone Post Graduate Diploma and Post Graduate Degree courses in the third respondent colleges. While securing admission, they had executed bonds undertaking to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years. The bond period has since expired. Now, the appellants / petitioners are in need of original certificates so as to pursue higher education. The authorities are taking the stand that since the bond conditions have not been fulfilled, they would not return the certificates. It has been held in more than one case that Educational Certificates are not marketable commodities and therefore, they cannot be withheld. [R.D.Saxena -Vs- Balram Prasad Sharma 2000 (7) SCC 246] and [S.Muthukamakshi (Vs) Anna University (2013) 1 CTC 595]

3. In this view of the matter, the respective colleges are directed to return the petition mentioned original certificates to the appellants / writ petitioners forthwith and without any delay. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the

Judgment dated 6.10.2022 passed in W.A.No.2256 of 2022, etc. ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

appellants / writ petitioners for violation of bond conditions. If according to the authorities, the writ petitioners have to pay damages, it is open to them to file a Civil Suit or take recourse to any other remedy for recovering the same but on that ground, the certificates cannot be retained. There can never be a general lien on educational certificates in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act.” [emphasis supplied]

10. A similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this

Court in M.Kesavan v. The Principal, Cheran College of Pharmacy and

others2. The said decision was alluded to by another learned Single

Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Eshita Gupta v. Jaipur National

University and another3, wherein it was held as under:

“19. ... The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academic Education Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 6 SCC 697 while considering the scope and right of an institution to collect fee has set the standards and the criterias for collecting the same but even very consciously, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has nowhere authorized any institution to continue custody of the original documents of a

2024 MHC 1430

Order dated 3.12.2025 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7084 of 2024 ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

student solely to recover the fee. Even the State Government is quite conscious of the said fact and the information booklet relied upon by the respondents also nowhere provides for any such condition. Thus, it is writ large that the intent of the State as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is, to enable the institution to recover its fees but certainly not by way of forcefully retaining the original documents of a student.” [emphasis supplied]

11. We are, therefore, of the view that retaining of the

certificates of the writ petitioner on the ground that only upon

payment of the amount due, the certificates will be returned cannot be

countenanced.

12. In the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, this

Court and other High Court, we are of the view that there is no

infirmity in the order/direction of the learned Single Judge directing

the appellant college to return the certificates of the writ petitioner. 12.

13. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant

institution is directed to forthwith comply with the direction of the ______________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

learned Single Judge.