Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MEENAKSHI.B.R – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges corpus fund fees. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel for both petitioners and respondents heard. (Para 3) |
| 3. previous ruling categorizes corpus fund as tuition fee. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition seeks to quash Ext.P5 notice and also for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent not to collect any amount towards the Corpus Fund, allegedly due from the petitioners.
2. Petitioners are MBBS students of the 3rd respondent college.
The petitioners had obtained admission under the NRI quota. While fixing the fee for NRI quota, petitioners allege that the Admission Supervisory Committee fixed the fee as Rs.20 lakhs of which Rs.5 lakhs was to be paid as Corpus Fund. Petitioners contended that the amount payable towards the Corpus Fund cannot be regarded as fee payable by them, and on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court, produced as Ext.P3, they are not liable to pay any amount to such a Corpus Fund.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. In Govind Krishnan v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC Online
194] a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered an identical issue and came to the co
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
