Educational institutions cannot withhold original certificates of students for non-payment of fees as they are not marketable commodities.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.3.2026 passed in W.P.No.49758 of 2025, the fourth respondent therein has filed the present writ appeal.

3. The first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition to declare clause (6) of the agreement bond dated 11.9.2023 executed by him at the time of admission to the appellant college as null and void and not binding on him, as he discontinued the course. By the impugned order, while rejecting the prayer of the appellant, the learned Single Judge, passed the following order:

“8. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

(i) The prayer of the petitioner to declare the clause (6) in the agreement bond, dated 11.09.2023 as illegal stands rejected. The college authorities will be entitled to recover the sum due from the student as if there were arrears of land revenue.

(ii) However, the certificates/documents of the petitioner should be returned within one week from the date of receipt of the web copy of the Order without waiting for a certified copy of this order.

(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the main relief sought in the writ petition has been rejected as is evident from Para No.8(i), the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued the direction contained in Para No.8(ii). Further, the claim of the writ petitioner to seek direction to return the original certificates is beyond the scope of the main relief.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the order of the writ court is directly against the order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Medical Education and another v. M.Aarthy , 12019 SCC OnLine Mad 28115, wherein it has been held that in the event the petitioner therein pays the discontinuation fee, the respondent shall return all the original certificates within a period of one week from the date on which the payment is made.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant college is a self-financing institution and is running only on the fees collected from the students. When a student is leaving in the middle of the course, the college will not be in a position to admit any other student by filling up the vacancy and, consequently, the college will also lose the revenue. Therefore, the writ petitioner cannot claim the certificates without performing his duties and obligations to pay the discontinuation fees.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that even though the writ petitioner sought larger relief in the writ petition, taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents v. Union of India and others , 2(2019) 8 SCC 607, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while making submissions before the learned Single Judge, focused his argument only for return of the certificates and considering the grievance of the writ petitioner in proper perspective, the writ court has rightly directed the appellant college to return the certificates/documents of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The present appeal mainly challenges the directi