2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
DR.VIDHYA.T – Appellant
Versus
THE DEAN – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Dr.Vidhya.T .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Dean Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College And Hospital Salem, Tamilnadu 636001
2.The Registrar Dr.MGR Medical University No.62 Anna Salai, Guindy Chennai 600032.
3.The Medical Council of India Room No.354 DGHS Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Niraman Bhawan, Delhi 110011 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly, respondents 1 and 2 to return all the original documents entrusted by the petitioner at the time of admission for the M.D.(Forensic Medicine) Course at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem Tamil Nadu for the academic year 2024-2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Johnson For R1 : Mrs.M.Sneha For R2 : Mr.G.Arumugam, Standing Counsel For R3 : Mrs.Shubharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular, respondents 1 and 2, to return the original documents entrusted by the petitioner at the time of admission of M.D. (Forensic Medicine) at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem, for the academic year 2024-2025.
2.When this writ petition came up for admission on 28.10.2025, this Court passed the following order:
“This writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to return all the original documents that were given by the petitioner at the time of admission for the M.D.(Forensic Medicine) Course at the first respondent College and Hospital.
2. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for 2024 NEET PG Entrance Examination for M.D/M.S Course. The petitioner obtained sufficient marks and made herself eligible to participate in the Tamil Nadu Medical Counselling during 2024-2025. During counselling, the petitioner was allotted with PG Course in the first respondent College. At the time of admission, the petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.68,000/- towards college fee to the first respondent College on 28.02.2025. The petitioner, at the time of admission, entrusted all the original certificates with the first respondent.
4. The petitioner's mother had a fall and as a result, she suffered spinal cord complications and was unable to move on her own. The petitioner being the only daughter had to take care of her mother. Hence, the petitioner was not in a position to join the course. The petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent seeking for return of all the original documents entrusted by the petitioner at the time of admission for M.D course (Forensic Medicine) at the first respondent College. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The learned Government Advocate for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner is bound by the prospectus which specifically provides at Clause 24(b) that the All India Quota candidates who discontinue the course on or after the stipulated date specified by All India Quota counselling should pay the discontinuation fees besides foregoing tuition fees already paid by them. It is stated that discontinuation fees will be Rs.15 Lakh. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly asked to come and join the first respondent College but she did not join. Therefore, if the petitioner wants her original certificates to be returned back, she has to pay the discontinuation fee to the first respondent and on such payment, the original certificates will be returned.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fi