ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Nishanth for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.N.K.Ramesh for respondent No.1.

2. By filing the present writ petition, petitioner-Institute has prayed to set aside order dated 13.07.2017 and notice dated

28.07.2017.

2.1. The order dated 13.07.2017 is passed by respondent No.1-Admission Overseeing Committee requiring petitioner- Institute to refund the amount of Rs.23,850/- to respondent No.2- student which was collected towards first year B.E. course fees and Rs.68,850/-. The said fees were collected for the entire course. The Committee directed to refund the amount with 18% interest from the date of payment till refund is made.

2.2 Impugned notice dated 28.07.2017 is consequential notice to the aforesaid order dated 13.07.2017, whereby petitioner-

Institute was put to notice that the refund shall have to be made as per the order dated 13.07.2017 within seven days.

3. Respondent No.2-student was admitted in the first year B.E.course (Electronics & Communication). Thereafter, the student appeared in the Casual Vacancy Counselling round conducted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority. In that process, respondent No.2-student was allotted a seat in the M.B.B.S. course. Respondent No.2 - student addressed a letter to management of petitioner-Institute seeking return of the original documents as she had got admission on the medical seat.

3.1 It appears that respondent No.2 - student approached respondent No.1 – Committee. Complaints were made by the student and she asked for refund of the amount of fees. Respondent No.1-Committee passed order requiring petitioner- Institute to refund the amount of fees paid to respondent No.2-

student.

4. Learned advocate for petitioner-Institute submitted that the directions issued by respondent No.1 - Committee to refund the fees were beyond the powers of the Committee. It was submitted that respondent No.1 - Committee could, at the most, only to make recommendations to the State Government as per the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006. It was sought to be contended that respondent No.1 - Committee has no statutory authority in law and could not have issued the order and the notice.

5. Under Section 5(8) of the aforesaid Act, respondent No.1- Committee is empowered to hear complaints with regard to admission in contravention of the procedure laid down by the Committee. It may make recommendation upon obtaining evidence and explanation in relation to the contravention alleged. The Committee may also direct the University concerned to levy and collect fine and it has also powers to declare the admission dehors the merit. In other words, all complaints regarding to the admissions and contravention of the proceedings of admission are within the preview of the Committee.

5.1 In the present case, it is admitted that respondent No.2 – student, on her own right, could secure the seat in the M.B.B.S course in the counselling process. Initially Rs.23,850/- was paid towards fees for the first year by respondent No.2 - student and thereafter, Rs.68,850/- was paid towards fees for the entire year to the petitioner - Institute.

5.2 The stand taken by petitioner-Institute in calling in question the direction of respondent No.1-Committee to refund the fees has been that the admissions were over on a particular date and because of respondent No.2 - student leaving the college, the seat remained vacant; therefore, she was not entitled for refund of the fees. It could not be countenanced.

5.3 The Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2003) 6 SCC 697] observed that the college has no right to demand the college fees/tuition fees for the future years and directed the college to return the original certificate/testimonials submitted by petitioner-Institute before it.

5.3.1 The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 8 of the Islamic Academy (supra) that if