Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Sqn. Ldr (dr.)Manjitpal Singh R/o H. No. B204, Sf, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064 – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Thr. Secr. (Health & Family Welfare) Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Room No. 156-a, Nirman Bhawan, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001 – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8495 of 2018 & CM Appls. 32653 of 2018, 8254 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2023
NEET SS-2018 - Refund of Security Deposit - Proforma for College - Information Regarding Fee - [NEET SS-2018] - [Annual Fee for NEET SS Candidate (Rs.)0, Admission Amount to be paid (Rs.)0] - The court dismissed the petition for refund of security deposit, stating that the forfeiture clause applied by the MCC was uniform and there was no fault on the part of the MCC. The court also noted that issues regarding the disclosure of fee information by the college need to be addressed with sufficient evidence and relevant guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a refund of the security deposit after being asked to deposit a higher amount for admission to a college than initially indicated. The court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the forfeiture clause applied by the MCC was uniform and there was no fault on the part of the MCC. The court also noted that issues regarding the disclosure of fee information by the college need to be addressed with sufficient evidence and relevant guidelines.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refund of the security deposit, the role of MCC in the counselling process, and the adequacy of fee disclosure by the college.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the forfeiture clause applied by the MCC was uniform and there was no fault on the part of the MCC. The court also noted that issues regarding the disclosure of fee information by the college need to be addressed with sufficient evidence and relevant guidelines.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. ______/2023 (TO BE NUMBERED)
1. Heard.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Shri D.P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 stands discharged from the present petition.
3. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8495/2018 & CM APPLs 32653/2018, 8254/2019
4. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for various reliefs however, he confines his relief to prayer (B) i.e., to consider refund of the security deposit of Rs.2 lakhs, paid by the petitioner during round-1 of the counselling.
5. The case of the petitioner is that after completion of M.D. in General Medicine from Army Hospital Research & Referral Delhi, Cantonment in 2018, the petitioner applied under National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Special Specialisation)-2018 for Nephrology (in short 'NEET SS-2018').
6. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for the purpose of participating in the counselling. While filing up the choice, the petitioner visited various websites of the colleges where he could get admission and realising that the fee of respondent No.5-College is `Zero', he opted for respondent No.5-College for admission. According to him, he even made a call to the college and it was confirmed to him that the fee is `Zero'.
7. The petitioner, on the basis of his merit position, was awarded a seat in respondent No.5-College in the first round of counselling. When the petitioner went to respondent No.5-College on 10.08.2018, he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to secure admission in the concerned course.
8. The petitioner, immediately on 11.08.2018, sent an e-mail to the Medical Counseling Committee (in short 'MCC'), informing them of the aforesaid fact, indicating that despite the fees being shown `Zero', the petitioner was demanded a sum of Rs.40 lakhs. There was no reply from the MCC and therefore, the petitioner approached this court by way of this instant petition.
9. This court vide interim order dated 14.08.2018, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as a security deposit and he was also allowed to participate in the second round of counselling. The petitioner, however, could not secure a seat of his choice in the second round of counselling; and the fee deposited towards security for the second round of counselling was refunded to him.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the information uploaded by the respondent No.5-College is compared with the information uploaded by various other colleges, the same would clearly indicate that the entire anomaly has been created on account of incorrect disclosure by respondent No.5-College on its portal. He states that if the relevant information is perused, the same would indicate that the annual fee for NEET Super Speciality Candidate and admission amount to be paid by a concerned student, is shown to be `Zero'. If the same is seen in contrast with the information provided by the other colleges, it is evident that the other colleges have clearly mentioned the fees to be deposited by the concerned student. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled for a refund of the security deposit amount which he had deposited for participation in the first round of counselling. According to him, had the correct information been uploaded on the information portal, the petitioner would not have opted to participate in the counselling nor would have deposited the security fee of Rs.2 lakhs.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Union of India (UOI) submits that in compliance with the directions given by this court, a comprehensive note has been submitted by the UOI. According to her, as per the 'refund policy' for NEET SS-2018 counselling, which was also uploaded on MCC portal, it was very specifically mentioned that the security fees deposited by the candidates would not be refunded. She further
Uniform application of forfeiture clause by the MCC and the need for sufficient evidence and relevant guidelines for addressing issues regarding fee disclosure by colleges.
The mandatory conditions for refund can be read down to be directory in nature, especially when the student subsequently indicates allotment in the second counselling and reasons for forsaking the al....
The confiscation of fees and security deposit without authority of law violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
No explicit prospectus provision allows forfeiture of tuition fees for false documents; only security deposit forfeitable.
The court directed the timely decision on the petitioner's representation for refund of security amount, emphasizing the importance of expeditious handling of such grievances.
The court upheld the forfeiture of fees for candidates opting out of allotted seats, emphasizing reliance on the prospectus terms, dismissing the lower judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
