The confiscation of fees and security deposit without authority of law violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Ms. Anupama Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, assisted by Mr. Kshitiz Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, Mr. Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Mr. Amrendra Singh Yadav holding brief of Mr. Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6/College.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking refund of the deposit of Rs.13,30,000/-along with interest paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.4 towards fees and security deposit.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner appeared in National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) of the year 2018 and secured the rank 333095 for the course of M.B.B.S. It is stated that after the first round of counseling the petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/-by means of a demand draft in favour of the opposite party no.4 on 22.06.2018 as security deposit. It is also stated that the petitioner was informed that she has been allotted respondent no.6/College for pursuing the M.B.B.S. Course for Academic Session 2018-19.

4. It is stated that after allocation of seat the petitioner was called upon by the respondent no.4 to deposit the fee, which was deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs.11,30,000/-on 7.7.2018. Thus the petitioner deposited a total sum of Rs.13,30,000/-and was allotted the respondent no.6/College. It is claimed that subsequently the petitioner was allotted a seat in Madhya Pradesh, which the petitioner found to be better option, as such she applied for refund of fees and security money deposited by the petitioner, which has been refused by means of order dated 6.1.2020 (Annexure No.1).

5. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the same has been refused on the ground that the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted on the condition that in the event the applicant resigns after the second round of counseling the amount deposited by the student towards the fees as well as the security shall not be refunded. It is also stated therein that in Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 12.06.2018 there is a bar from withdrawal or resignation, after the start of second round of counseling. It was also recorded that in the brochure issued for the NEET, 2018 in Clause 9 and 10 there is a provision for confiscating the security money and the ‘fee’ deposited by the students thus, on this ground the request of the applicant was rejected for refund of Rs.13,30,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the provision of security and deposit were introduced subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Darul-Us-Slam Educational Trust and ors. Vs. Medical Council of India and Ors; Writ Petition(s)(Civil)No.(s).267/2017she specifically makes a mention of paras 3, 4 and 6 of the said judgment which are quoted hereunder:

"3. As per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ashish Ranjan vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2016) 11 SCC 225], there shall be only two rounds of common counselling each conducted by the DGHS/State Government or authority designated by the State Government for All India Quota (including Deemed University) and State Quota seats respectively.

4. After the second round of counselling for All India Quota seats, the students who take admission in All India Quota seats should not be allowed/permitted to vacate the seats. This would ensure that very few seats are reverted to the State Quota and also All India Quota seats are filed by students from the all India merit list only. The students who take admission and secure admission in Deemed Universities pursuant to the second round of counselling conducted by the DGHS shall not be eligible to participate i