An educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year, and if a student leaves the course midway, the institution may require the student to give a bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees of the course, but cannot insist upon payment of the fees for the entire duration of the course as a pre-condition for returning original documents.

HARSHA DEVANI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. Ms. Vaibhavi Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Having regard to the facts of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to immediately return the original documents of the petitioner viz. School Leaving Certificate, 2013, 10th Marksheet, Passing Certificate, 12th Attempt Certificate and treat the admission of the petitioner in Bachelor of Dental Science as cancelled.

4. The petitioner had enrolled in the Bachelor of Dental Science (B.D.S.) course which is an under-graduate course with the respondent University and was given admission in the third respondent College which is a college affiliated to the second respondent University on 22nd September, 2013. Upon being given admission, the petitioner submitted the above referred original documents to the third respondent College pursuant to which a receipt was issued on 24th September, 2013. The petitioner paid Rs.2,60,000/-(Rs.1,30,000/-for the first term + Rs.1,30,000/-for the second term) for the academic year 2013-2014. Due to personal reasons, the petitioner was desirous of cancelling the admission and, therefore, requested the third respondent College to return the original documents referred to hereinabove to the petitioner. On 17th June, 2014, the petitioner gave a written application to the third respondent College for return of the above referred documents. The petitioner needs the above referred documents because she does not want to pursue the B.D.S. course and, therefore, requested the third respondent College to cancel her admission and give back the original documents. However, the original documents have not been returned and the petitioner has been orally informed that the documents will be returned only if the petitioner pays the balance fees for the remaining three years which would come to Rs.7,80,000/-.

5. The petitioner has thereafter made several visits to the third respondent College requesting that the original documents may be returned to her, however, such request has been denied and there is no co-operation from the third respondent. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court seeking the relief noted hereinabove.

6. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the third respondent College is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the action of the third respondent College in not returning the original documents without payment of the fees for the remaining part of the course is without authority of law since the College does not have any lien over the original documents submitted by the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to cancel the admission secured by her and that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of University rules.

6.1 In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of this court in the case of Monil Prakashchandra Thakkar v. State of Gujarat rendered on 10th March, 2014 in Special Civil Application No.18082/2013 wherein in a similar set of circumstances, the court had held in favour of the petitioner student and had directed the respondents to treat the admission of the said petitioner as cancelled and to return the original documents to the petitioner forthwith. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Varun Patel, learned advocate appearing for the third r