HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
NEETHU UNNI – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was admitted as a student in the 2nd respondent Engineering College. Subsequent to her joining in the College she secured admission for BHMS Course. When TC was declined to be issued, she approached this court by filing WP(c).No252/09 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that, on the petitioner remitting the liquidated damages provided in the prospectus, TC shall be issued to the petitioner. It is stated that payment was made and T.C. was given.
2. Subsequently she made Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent requesting for instructing the college to refund the tuition fee, hostel fee and caution deposit towards which Rs.30,750/-,20,000/- and 5000/- respectively were collected. The first respondent issued WP(c).No.10376/09 2 Ext.P4 direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the amount. Despite Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner the amount was not refunded and hence this writ petition is filed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed, 2nd respondent relied on clause 12:2:3 of the prospectus, it is stated that if cancellation of admission is after the closure of the admission, no refund of fee will be made to a candidate. It i
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.