Important points:
" Providing a clause under Ext.R5(a) Government Order, a coercive tactics is employed against the student to realize money from the student, without even adjudicating the issue with respect to any liquidated damages suffered by the management-Such a clause contained under the Government Order is against the public policy liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
" The condition contained in the agreement enabling the management to detain the certificates as a void clause opposed to public policy, and therefore, the agreement is unenforceable.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a B.Sc. Nursing student, seeking direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take action to return the original academic certificates of the petitioner from 4th and 5th respondents, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner joined for B.Sc. Nursing course under the 4th respondent College affiliated to 2nd and 3rd respondents, on 03.08.2011. She paid a total amount of Rs.1,27,750/- at the time of admission. As there was no basic amenities in the hostel, she made complaints to the concerned authorities, according to her, thereafter she was subjected to unbearable mental torture and harassment, both in the hostel and college, at the instance of the officials of the 4th and 5th respondents. Thereupon, she had to leave her studies. But, when she requested for return of original certificates, respondents 4 and 5 refused to do so. Case projected by the petitioner is that, 4th and 5th respondents have no right or authority to withhold the original certificates of the petitioner. Even as per the provisions contained under Ext.P5 Prospectus, respondents 4 and 5 have no authority to withhold the original certificates, also due to the fact that the documents were not given as collateral security for the payment of fees, but to ensure verification of the originals in order to ascertain the qualification of the petitioner.

3. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a very detailed counter affidavit, justifying the stand adopted in retaining the original certificates of the petitioner. According to them, petitioner had discontinued her studies after the cut-off date for closing of admissions fixed by the Government, and hence in terms of Ext.P5 prospectus, petitioner is liable to pay four times the annual tuition fee paid by her, to the institution by way of liquidated damages. As per Ext.P1 series, the tuition fee paid for the 1st year by the petitioner is Rs.78,000/-, and therefore, Rs.3,12,000/- has to be paid to the institution on account of liquidated damages. Even if the already remitted fee is given credit, a balance of Rs.2,34,000/- is remaining due. Since the college is a self-financing institution, the institution has to pay salary to the Principal and all other staff and further to undertake the maintenance of the buildings, equipments and such other facilities. It is also stated that, there is no grant from any corner and the only source of fund is the payment received from the students. That apart, it is pointed out that, the seat of the petitioner is still lying vacant, and if the said amount as covered by the prospectus is not received, the institution will find it difficult to survive.

4. It is also stated that, the matter was before the Human Rights Commission and under peculiar circumstances, the Management did not object to the suggestion made by the Commission, however, it never agreed to go below Rs.50,000/-. The other allegations made by the petitioner are all denied. So much so, it is submitted that, the prospectus would stipulate that the students would be entitled to get back their credentials on clearing out the dues with the institution and it was knowing fully about the provisions of the prospectus, petitioner availed seat in the management quota, and as such, petitioner cannot wriggle out from making payment as contemplated therein.

5. The 5th respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit, in similar lines and it is also pointed out that, as per Ext.R5(a) Government Order dated 30.06.2012, the Nursing Colleges' Association had to enter into contract with the Government of Kerala, and it was thereupon that the conditions are incorporated in the prospectus.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

7. The question revolves around the inaction on the part of respondents 4 and 5 to release the origina