Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MANISH MATHUR
Shivangi Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. U. P. Civil Secrett. Lko. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.3 stand dispensed with.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- and security amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited at the time of first counselling for the purposes of allotment of a medical college to petitioner.
3. It is submitted that petitioner participated in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for the under-graduate programme in year 2022 and was allotted F.H. Medical College, Agra in the first counselling. It is submitted that at the same time, petitioner was also participating in the counselling pertaining to NIMS University, Jaipur under the general category but prior to conclusion of counselling in Jaipur, F.H. Medical College, Agra was allotted to petitioner in the fir
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....
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.
An educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year and may require a bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees if a student may leave in midstream.
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.
The Court emphasized that minimal deficiencies should not negate renewals for educational institutions, ensuring student admissions are preserved in public interest.
The court established that delays in seeking relief under Article 226 do not bar claims when fundamental rights are violated, especially in cases involving mistakes or fraud.
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
Listen Article