The court upheld the forfeiture of fees for candidates opting out of allotted seats, emphasizing reliance on the prospectus terms, dismissing the lower judgment.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.16607 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, respondents 1 to 4 are Doctors. They participated in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET PG) 2021 on 11.09.2021 for securing admission to Post-Graduation courses. Respondents 1 to 4 participated in the first allotment/second allotment (counselling) respectively conducted by the 2^nd appellant, and they secured admission/seats in different Colleges. But respondents 1 to 4 exited from the seats allotted to them, invoking the provision of free exit within the time fixed by the 2^nd appellant. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 4 applied to participate in the State Mop-Up counselling conducted by the 2^nd appellant. At the time of registering for Mop-Up counselling respondents 1 to 4 were directed to pay a fee of Rs.1,57,500/- (i.e 10% of the tuition fee paid in the college wherein respondents 1 to 4 secured admission earlier) for participating in Mop-Up counselling for the reason that respondents 1 to 4 did not join the respective colleges allotted to them in the first/second phase allotment respectively. According to respondents 1 to 4, when they made enquiries in the office of the 2^nd appellant, it was informed that the above-mentioned amount of Rs.1,57,500/- will be refunded if respondents 1 to 4 do not secure admission in the Mop-Up counselling, or the same will be adjusted from the total fee amount if the respondents 1 to 4 secure admission in the Mop-Up counselling. Respondents 1 and 4 secured admission in the State Mop-Up counselling. The 2^nd respondent did not secure admission in the State Mop-Up counselling. The 3^rd respondent did not participate in the state Mop-Up counselling as she secured admission in the All India Mop- Up counselling. On several occasions, respondents 1 to 4 approached the office of the 2^nd appellant requesting refund of Rs.1,57,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) paid by them for participating in the Mop-Up counselling. On all those occasions, it was informed from the office of the 2^nd appellant that the amount would be refunded soon. But, the 2^nd appellant has not refunded the amount paid by the respondents 1 to 4. Thereafter 2^nd appellant issued Exhibit P14 communication dated 13.09.2022 to the 1^st respondent stating that the exit fee amount paid by respondents 1 to 4 cannot be refunded in view of the forfeiture clause mentioned in Clause “10- 1.18" of Exhibit P1 prospectus. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4- writ petitioners filed W.P.(C)No. 16607 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to refund Rs.1,57,500/- each paid by the petitioners for participating in State Mop- Up.

ii) Issue appropriate writ or order declaring that forfeiture clause of 10% of the fee amount mentioned in Clause “10.1.18" of Exhibit P1 Prospectus is not applicable to the petitioners.

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P14”.

3. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 2^nd appellant, a statement dated 31.05.2023 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024 allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P14 communication dated 13.09.2022 issued by the 2^nd appellant and directed the appellants – respondents 1 an