Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
THE PRINCIPAL – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED ROSHAN – Respondent
WP(C)/19476/2022
Fees - Professional Education - Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006, Section on Refund Provisions - The court upheld the requirement for institutions to refund illegally collected fees, emphasizing compliance with Supreme Court directives applying strict criteria for evidence related to fee payments.
Fact of the Case:
The Principal of a medical college challenged orders from the Admission Supervisory Committee regarding excess fees collected from students. Following a Supreme Court directive to refund illegally collected fees, several students approached the AFRC, alleging non-compliance leading to disputes over orders imposing penalties on the college.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the AFRC's orders were justified under the Supreme Court's binding directives, noting that the college failed to provide adequate counter-evidence against students' claims of excessive fee collections.
Issues: Whether the college's alleged out-of-court settlements and claims of insufficient evidence by students invalidated the AFRC's orders to refund fees collected beyond the legally permissible limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that any settlements made post-Supreme Court directives were irrelevant and invalid without the court's consent, reaffirming the importance of following established judicial orders and maintaining stringent standards for evidence.
Final Decision: All writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the AFRC's orders.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.18471/2022, 18975/2022, 19110/2022, 19136/2022, 19283/2022, 19470/2022, 19476/2022, 19705/2022, 19794/2022, 20072/2022, 20343/2022, 21507/2022]
These matters have been heard together since the factual underpinning presented and the reliefs pleaded in them are similar, if not identical. 2. All the afore cases have been filed by the Principal of the Kannur Medical College, Anjarakandy, Kannur ("College", for ease), against the orders issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala (AFRC), constituted under the provisions of the the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act", for brevity).
3. These matters have a fair amount of history, but it will not be necessary for this Court to speak about them in detail, since all of them have been concluded by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Breviloquently, on the allegation that the College had collected large amounts of money from each of the students, in excess of the fees payable, matters reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which concluded in an Order in SLP No.23225/2018 ("SLP Order"), whereby it was directed to repay the fees, along with double amount of the sums collected over and above it, to the students within the time frames fixed therein.
5. It transpires that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when amounts as ordered were not paid, the students approached the AFRC through independent petitions.
6. In the meanwhile, pending such applications, the College asserts that they had entered into out-of-court settlements with some of the students and that applications were preferred by them or their parents/guardians before the AFRC, to withdraw the complaints.
7. The College alleges that, however, the AFRC disregarded the settlements between the parties - in cases in which they had been arrived at; and then proceeded to issue the impugned orders imposing huge amounts on them, without assessing the adequacy and worth of the evidence led by the students or their parents/guardians; and thus contend that each of them are untenable and vitiated. They resultantly pray that the orders impugned in these cases be set aside.
8. I have heard Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath –
learned counsel for the petitioner in all these cases; Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Smt.Usha Rani appearing for the party respondents and Smt.Mary Benjamin –
learned Standing Counsel for the AFRC.
9. Smt.Mary Benjamin contested the afore submissions of Sri.Abdul Raoof Pallipath, vehemently maintaining that they are edificed on incorrect facts and in an attempt to stymie the rigour of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She explained that, in the "SLP Order", the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the College to return the fees collected from the students, along with double the amount of the sums which they had illegaly obtained in addition to it; but that they, thereafter, appear to have approached some of the students or their parents/guardians directly and to have paid certain amounts, thus forcing them to file applications for withdrawal of their complaints before the AFRC.
10. Smt.Mary Benjamin added that, however, when the Committee did not consider the aforesaid applications, the College approached this Court and obtained an interim stay initially; but that when the matters again reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through Civil Appeal No.596/2021 , a detailed judgment ("Civil Appeal Judgment") was delivered, directing the AFRC to issue notices to each of the students and to assess the actual amounts paid by them, thus leading to appropriate orders in terms of the directions in the "SLP Order". She argued that, therefore, the AFRC had no other option, but to consider the matter in such perspective de
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
