Back
Pushes State to Act on Law Student's Fee Refund Battle Against ILS College
In a procedural win for student rights, the on , disposed of a filed by Mayur Suhas Garud against the Principal of , Pune, and others. The bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna directed the Maharashtra government to decide on the petitioner's complaint regarding allegedly illegal fees within two months, while the college agreed to drop a contentious against him.
RTI Bombshell Ignites Fee Fury at ILS
The saga began with a Right to Information (RTI) response in 2025, exposing how , affiliated with , had collected massive sums under unauthorized heads. SPPU had approved student fees at just ₹2,345 under 19 heads for 2020 and 2024, but ILS allegedly charged ₹39,135 per student, adding 17 unapproved levies in violation of the .
Over five years, RTI data revealed collections of ₹29.64 crore under these heads, with only ₹4.09 crore spent on student welfare. Compounding the issue, college facilities funded by these fees were reportedly rented out to third parties, prompting Garud's protest—and a from the administration dated .
Garud filed a complaint on , with the state higher education authorities, seeking refund of ₹1,04,863 collected from him across 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2024-25, plus interest.
Petitioner's Fight: 'Illegal Levy Must Be Rolled Back'
Garud urged the court for directions to the state to act against the college management, highlighting the mismatch between approved and collected fees. He argued these extra charges breached fee regulation laws, with funds misused or unspent, directly impacting students.
College and State's Cautious Stance
The college, through counsel, assured the court it would take no action on the March 2025 —a key relief for Garud. The state, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, committed to expediting the pending complaint, influenced by instructions from a higher education official present in court.
Court's No-Nonsense Directives Steer Clear of Merits
Eschewing a deep dive into the fee dispute's merits, the bench accepted these undertakings. No precedents were invoked, as the matter turned procedural.
Key Observations
"By this, the Petitioner has,, prayed for a direction to Respondent No.4 – State to take appropriate action against the Respondent College Management for refund of Rs.1,04,863/- illegally collected from the Petitioner..."
"...the Respondent No.4 will decide the complaint dated 11 April 2025 restricted toin the Petition within a period of two months from today and the decision on the complaint will be communicated... within a period of one week thereafter."
"...thedated 24 March 2025 served upon the Petitioner by the Respondent – College Management has not been acted upon and no action will be taken..."
"In view of the above statements, nothing survives in theand is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
"The rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon the merits of the matter."
Implications: Fast-Track to Fee Accountability?
The ruling clears the path for Garud's complaint resolution by April 2026, potentially unlocking his refund claim. It signals judicial nudge for administrative efficiency in education fee disputes, leaving substantive violations—like the alleged ₹29 crore misuse—for state adjudication. Future students facing similar overcharges may cite this for quicker grievance redressal, underscoring RTI's role in holding institutions accountable.
