W.P.No.105608/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.105608/2018 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
Miss. B.K.Akanksha D/o Dr.B.S.Kumar,
Aged 19 years, Occ: 1st year student BDS,
R/o H.No.651, Sai Ram Badavane,
Chitawadagi, Hosapete-583201.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Sanjay Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
1.
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Dental College, Gulbarga,
Kalaburagi-585106
Rep. by its Dean.
2.
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Medical Division-IV,
Hqrs. Office, Panchadeep Bhavan,
CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002,
Rep. by its Director General.
W.P.No.105608/2018
2
3.
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Rep. by its Joint Director,
ESI Corporation, Sub-Regional Office,
No.H-42, Ground Floor, Niketan Ground Floor,
Adj. New Central Bus Stand, Hubballi-580030.
… Respondents
(By Sri Sanjeevkumar C.Patil, Advocate for R1;
R3-served; Notice to R2 is d/w v/o. dated 13.07.2022)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ in the nature
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction and direct the respondent No.1 College to refund
the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only)
deposited by the petitioner and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
The petitioner herein has approached this Court
seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1
to refund the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.
2.
It is the case of the petitioner that she was
initially admitted to first year Bachelor of Dental
Surgeon Course in the ESI Dental College managed by
the respondents. Since the petitioner got a seat in
Koppal Institute of Medical Sciences at Koppal, she got
3
herself admitted in the said college and had sought for
the return of the documents from the respondents
college wherein she was initially admitted for her first
year
Bachelor
of
Dental
Surgeon
course.
The
respondents allegedly have returned all the documents
but they have collected a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from
her in terms of the bond said to have been executed by
the petitioner. It is under these circumstances, the
petitioner has approached this Court.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents
submits
that
the
demand
draft
for
a
sum
of
Rs.10,00,000/- which was furnished by the petitioner
has not been en-cashed by them and the said demand
draft has already lapsed and in spite of the request
made by the respondents the same has not been
revalidated and therefore the prayer made by the
petitioner
in
this
petition
will
not
survive
for
consideration.
4
4.
Having regard to the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents no relief
can be granted to the petitioner in this petition as the
prayer itself has been rendered infructuous.
5.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the respondents have not
returned the original Demand Draft and therefore, the
petitioner is not in a position to take back the amount
from the Bank. He submits that the respondents cannot
withhold the Demand Draft as they have wrongly
collected the same and he has referred to the bond
executed by him. He has also relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble High Court Panjab and Harayana in support of
his case. He prays that direction be issued to
respondents to return the original of the Demand Draft
which admittedly has expired.
5
6.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
has submitted that the petitioner has abandoned the
course and therefore having regard to the bond
executed by her, the respondents are justified in
collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner
and therefore, the prayer made for return of the original
Demand Draft cannot be considered.
7.
From the reading of the bond executed by the
petitioner, which is produced at Annexure-A, it is clear
that the same has been executed as an indemnity only
in the event the petitioner does not serve the
respondent - Institution after she successfully completes
her graduation. In the case on hand, the petitioner has
abandoned her admission in the institution of the
respondent at inception level and she got admitted in
KIMS, Koppal. Therefore, the respondents were not at
all justified in collecting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from
the petitioner for the purpose of return of her original
6
documents. The Hon'ble High Court of Panjab and
Harayana in almost identical circumstances has held that
the bond executed by the student has no nexus with the
admission of the student but with the service only and
therefore, the respondent therein had committed a
patent error in asking the petitioner therein for
submitting the UG bond for a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs as a
condition
precedent
for
releasing
his
testimonials/educational
certificates.
Under
the
circumstances, even in the present case, I am of the
view that the respondents are not justified in collecting
the Demand Draft from the petitioner for a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- and since admittedly they have not en-
cashed the same, for the purpose of enabling the
petitioner to seek refund of the said amount from the
Bank, they are required to return the original Demand
Draft to the petitioner. Accordingly, they are directed to
return the original of the Demand Draft bearing
7
No.367210 drawn on State Bank of India dated
2
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.