[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Praveenkumar vs University Grants Commission on 25 February, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.No.46897 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.46897 of 2025
R.Praveenkumar,
S/o. Ramamoorthi,
4/7 Melanambipuram,
Ettayapuram Taluk,
Thoothukudi District 628 902
..Petitioner
Vs
1.University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002.
2.The Dean/Principal,
Saveetha School of Management,
Saveetha Institute of Medical and
Technical Sciences (deemed University)
162 Poonamallee High Road,
Chennai 600 077.
Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to repay
pending fees of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand only) to
be returnable with the interest of 10% for the period from 31.10.2022 to the date
of payment by the 2nd respondent or any other orders as deemed fit and proper
to the circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
W.P.No.46897 of 2025
For Petitioner: Mr.CH.Mohithsai for
M/s.K.K.Samy
For Respondents Mr.B.Rabu Manohar,
Sr.Central Government Standing
Counsel for R1
M/s M.Aariya for R2
ORDER
This writ petition is filed directing the second respondent to repay the
pending fees of Rs.1,65,000/- with further interest at the rate of 10% from
31.10.2022, till the date of disbursement.
2.The case of the writ petitioner is that he sought admission and was
admitted into the M.B.A. course with dual specialization in Human Resource
Management and Logistics and Supply Chain Management for the academic
years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. Based on the admission, he was advised to pay
the admission course fees. He paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 16.06.2022;
Rs.49,999/- on 11.09.2022; and Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.10.2022, in all totalling
Rs.2,64,999/-, rounded off to Rs.2,65,000/-. As a matter of fact, the 2 nd
respondent-Institution informed that the total fee would be Rs.3.50 lakhs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
3. Thereafter, the second respondent-Institution insisted the petitioner to
produce the results of TNCET. When earlier the same was not required from the
petitioner and when subsequently it was requested, the petitioner decided to opt
out of the course and requested for refund of the money. Accepting his request,
a sum of Rs.2,000/- was refunded on 08.01.2024 and another sum of
Rs.48,000/- also on the same day and also Rs.50,000/- on 19.02.2024, in all
totalling Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the balance of Rs.1,65,000/-was not
refunded. The petitioner therefore made a representation and inspite thereof, the
money was not refunded and hence, this writ petition.
4. This writ petition is resisted by the second respondent-Institution by
filing a counter affidavit. It is admitted that the petitioner was admitted in to the
MBA programme and the entire fee payable upon such admission was
Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner also paid the said sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The
student also executed an affidavit of undertaking agreeing to pay the same
amount for each year of the two-year programme. While so, on 06.12.2022 the
petitioner submitted a written request that he had received an interview call
letter for the post of Village Administrative Officer and requested the return of
his original certificates. In the said letter, the petitioner expressly undertook that
he would return the certificates, after completion of interview. Pursuant thereto,
the petitioner collected his certificates on 07/12/2022 from the 2 nd respondent-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
Institution. Even at that point of time, the petitioner did not give any letter of
discontinuation and wanted to keep both the options open.
5. As far as the refund of fees is concerned, as per the University Grants
Commission Notification relating to refund of fees, the Institutions have to
follow a 5-tier system. If the student notifies his discontinuance after 30 days of
the formally notified last date of admission, then he is not entitled to refund of
any amount at all. This petitioner did not give any request for refund of fees
before the date of last date or even within 30 days from the date of last date and
therefore he is not entitled for any refund at all.
6. To the said counter affidavit, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by the
petitioner wherein he has mentioned in paragraph No.3 that a part amount was
refunded, in all totalling Rs.1,00,000/- by a person named Mr.Rambabu. The
relevant proof in respect thereof, in the nature of Google Pay transactions and
the extract of the amount being credited to the petitioner’s account, is also
produced in support thereof.
7. A sur-rejoinder was filed by the second respondent-Institution wherein
it is stated that the said Mr.Rambabu, was the employee with the Employee
ID:9079, working in the second respondent Institution as an Assistant Professor
and in-charge of admission in the Saveetha School of Management till May
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
2024. He was involved in financial mismanagement and a complaint was also
lodged by the second respondent-Institution against him with effect from
01.06.2024. Therefore, the second respondent-Institution is not responsible for
any representation that is made to Mr.Rambabu or for any financial dealings
between Mr.Rambabu and the petitioner.
8. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the second
respondent would also point out that even in the representation dated
04.07.2024, the petitioner has admitted that he made the request only to
Mr.Rambabu and Mr.Rambabu was only promising him to make the payment.
Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of facts and
suggestion of falsehood. Firstly, he suppressed the fact that he got the
certificates in the garb of VAO interview. Secondly, a false representation was
also made in the affidavit as if the representation was made to the Institution,
while the dealing seems to have been only with Rambabu.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
10. The case of the petitioner is that when he has paid a sum of
Rs.2,65,000/-, a part amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was returned to him, while the
balance is withheld. The case of the Institution is that no amount was repaid and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
the entire amount was liable to be forfeited as no written request was made
within the schedule prescribed by the UGC. The petitioner has produced proof
of credits to his account. It is stated that the same was made from the account of
one Rambabu. When this Court questioned the second respondent institution
that an affidavit is now filed wherein it is admitted that Rambabu was an
employee and that a complaint is lodged by the second respondent-Institution
itself against him for the financial irregularities.
11. Once it is admitted that Rambabu is its employee, then the second
respondent is liable for the consequences of his actions. If the employee had
acted beyond his power or authorisation, then it is a matter between him and the
management, and third parties like the petitioner cannot suffer.
12. Therefore from the very averments made in the surrejoinder, it can be
seen that the said Rambabu was employed under the second respondent-
institution and he in turn has refunded part of the amount. Therefore, when part
of the amount was refunded, the case that no written request was made prior to
the last date, cannot be believed and it is the petitioner’s case that he has
immediately made the request for refund of fees, even prior to the last date of
admission, has to be believed. It will be open for the second respondent-
institution to lodge a complaint against Rambabu with reference to this financial
transaction. Whether he had promised the money to the student or he has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
unauthorisedly credited any amount to the account of the student in the name of
the college thereby dragging the name of the college etc., as and when such a
complaint is made, the appropriate authority shall investigate the same. If it is
proved that there is any collusion between the petitioner and the said Rambabu
and if any charge sheet to that effect is filed, then the amount shall be refunded
by the petitioner again.
13. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of on the following
terms:
(i)The second respondent-institution shall refund the balance sum of
Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.10.2022 till the
date of disbursement.
(ii)The said refund shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of recipe of a web copy of the order without waiting for the certified copy
of the order.
(iii)It will be open for the second respondent-Institution to lodge a
complaint before the jurisdictional Police regarding the fraud, if any, suspected
as against the said Rambabu and as and when such complaint is made, the same
shall also be investigated by the police, whether the said Rambabu refunded the
money to the petitioner on behalf of the Institution or on behalf of any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
purpose. If it is ultimately proved that the return of money has nothing to do
with the institution, then the petitioner will refund the said amount to the second
respondent-Institution subject to his remedies.
No costs.
25-02-2026
Neutral Citation:No
ari
To
1.University Grant Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
110 002
2.The Dean/ Principal
Saveetha School Of Management,
Saveetha Institute Of Medical And
Technical Sciences (deemed University)
162 Poonamallee High Road, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ari
25-02-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 01:40:40 pm )
