IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Talha Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 7976 of 2024
Decided On : 17-09-2024
(A) Writ Petition - Direction to decide representation - Petitioner appeared in NEET (UG) Examination and deposited security for counseling - No institution allocated, hence representation for refund made - Court directed respondent to decide representation expeditiously within six weeks. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Grievance redressal - The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by authorities on representations made by individuals seeking refunds or similar reliefs. (Paras 4-5)
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents and Shri Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2 which is taken on record.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had appeared in NEET (UG) Examination for the Academic Session 2022-23 on 12.09.2021 and secured all India Rank 414002. As per Government Order dated 17.01.2023 the petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- as security for participating in the counseling.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the counseling, the petitioner was never allocated any institution and therefore had moved a representation for refund of the security amount. He has submitted that grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated application having been made by him, the respondents have not refunded his security amount or decided his application.
4. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that grievance of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case respondent No. 2 is directed to decide his representation in this regard dated 03.08.2023 annexed as Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition expeditiously.
5. Learned counsel for respondents have no objection to the aforesaid submissions.
6. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 i.e. Director General, Medical Education and Training Uttar Pradesh Lucknow to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure No. 5) in accordance with expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
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 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....
Courts should ensure equitable treatment of candidates in fee payment processes, particularly when delays are due to unavoidable circumstances.
The execution of a Surety Bond involves a conscious bargain, and the student must abide by its terms even in unforeseen circumstances.
The confiscation of fees and security deposit without authority of law violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
No explicit prospectus provision allows forfeiture of tuition fees for false documents; only security deposit forfeitable.
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.
An educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year and has no right to demand the remaining course fee if the student surrenders the seat before the last date of counsel....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.