The main legal point established in the judgment is that conditions imposed in contracts must be reasonable, fair, and not discriminatory, and should not be against public policy.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.3 to refund the amount of Rupees Five lakhs which has been taken from the petitioner as bond/affidavit condition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was admitted in respondent No.3 College from the State quota seat for Post Graduate degree in Doctor of Medicine in Anesthesiology. At the time of admission, petitioner had deposited full tuition fee, hostel fee etc. Additionally the respondent No.3 had got the affidavit dated 6/8/2014 signed from the petitioner stating that after completion of the course, petitioner will do Senior Residentship in the respondent No.3 Institute at least for one year failing which the petitioner will pay Rupees Five lakhs to the Institution in-lieu thereof and that unless the petitioner fulfills this condition she will not be eligible to receive any of her original documents, passing certificate and relieving certificate. The petitioner had completed Post Graduate Degree in Anesthesiology in June, 2017, but on account of some personal family problem the petitioner could not serve as Senior Resident in Respondent No.3 Institute, therefore, respondent No. 3 had refused to return the original of the petitioner unless the petitioner deposits Rupees Five lakhs. According to the petitioner she had taken a loan of Rupees Five lakh from her father and had deposited it with the respondent No.3 by demand draft Annexure P/5 and now the petitioner is claiming return of that amount.

3. Respondent No.3 has filed the reply taking the stand that the petitioner has given the affidavit, therefore, she is required to comply with the said condition.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. the State authorities have also filed the reply taking the stand that there is no such provision in Rule prevailing during the relevant time which required furnishing of bond to unaided private college, therefore, the respondent No.3 is required to justify its action.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that no Rule, Regulation or Circular of the State government permits the respondent No.3, a private unaided college, to impose such a condition at the time of admission, in respect of doing Senior Residentship for one year after completion of Post Graduate course and imposing the condition that the original and other relevant certificates will not be released unless Rupees five lakhs are paid or the said condition is complied with. The petitioner had got admission in the respondent No.3 College on her own merit in the State quota, therefore, at that stage the petitioner could not have been compelled to file such an affidavit.

6. At the time of taking admission the petitioner was not in a position to resist filing of such an affidavit because of her weak bargaining power as she had no option but to file such an affidavit in order to get admission. Similar issue has been considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shitanshu Shekhar Manoharlal Vs. State of Gujarat in P/STA/18840/2014 vide order dated 12th April, 2019 wherein it has been held that:-

17 . At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that the Supreme Court time and again has struck down the clauses or the conditions contained in the service agreement, which were found to be unfair, unreasonable, unconscionable and opposed to the public policy. As stated earlier, pursuant to the G.R. dated 28.06.2013, the bonds are required to be executed by the students while taking the admission in PG Courses. The students have no choice but to sign in the agreement bond in the prescribed format. In the opinion of the Court such bond agreement could not be said to be have been executed by free will or consent of the students, in view of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act . As per Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act, when the consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at t