2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
K.S.R.SHRISHARHARASI – Appellant
Versus
ADHIPARASAKTHI DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
and W.M.P.No.13274 of 2024
K.S.R.Shrisharharasi .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Adhiparasakthi Dental College & Hospital,
Affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical
University,
GST Road, Melmaruvathur – 603 319,
Chengalpattu District,
Tamil Nadu, India.
Rep. by its Principal
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.
Medical University,
No.69, Anna Salai, Rd, Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032,
Rep. by its Registrar
3. Dental Council of India,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marg,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane,
Opp. Mata Sundari College for Women,
New Delhi – 110 002, India.
4. Directorate of Medical Education,
Rep. by its Director,
No.162, EVR Periyar Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Rep. by its Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the G.O.(Ms) No.210 by Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 04.06.2018 on the file of the 5th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) to direct the 1st respondent which is affiliated to the 2nd respondent University under the 3rd and 4th respondents to return the original documents, certificates, and marksheets etc., which were handed over to the 1st respondent upon the admission into the BDS course by the petitioner, at the time of her admission to the course on 12.09.2018, by waving the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the clause 20 of prospectus of the 4th respondent that is issued under the G.O.(Ms).No.210, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 04.06.2018 by the 5th respondent that “The candidates who discontinue the course after the cut-off date should pay the discontinuation fee of Rs.10,00,000/- by means of Demand Draft drawn in favour of ‘The Secretary, Selection Committee, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10’ payable at Chennai”; (iii) to direct the 4th respondent to issue an order to allow the petitioner K.S.R.Shrisharharasi having Regn. No.541813567 to discontinue from the 1st respondent College in the course of B.D.S.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shyam Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Balaji, for R1 : Mr.G.Arumugam, Standing Counsel for R2 : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisti, Standing Counsel, for R3 : Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate, for RR-4 and 5
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to call for the records in respect of G.O.(MS).No.210 by Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 04.06.2018 and to quash the same and consequently, to return the marksheets and other documents of the petitioner, handed over to the first respondent at the time of admission into B.D.S., course by the petitioner at the time of her admission, by waiving the penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- as per Clause-20 of the prospectus and as per the aforementioned Government Order and also to permit the petitioner to discontinue the course. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted on behalf of the first respondent that all the certificates of the petitioner were handed over and she has been permitted to discontinue the course. However, the grievance that is remaining that of the petitioner is the liability to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the Government Order impugned in the Writ Petition.
3. As per the Government Order, if any candidate discontinues the course after the last date of admission, they have to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The learned Counsel only pleads that only pursuant to the personal circumstances of the petitioner, the petitioner could not continue the course as she was not in a position to pay even the fee. For the petitioner’s poverty, not being able to pay the fee, the petitioner should not be mulcted with another liability of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, she challenges the Government Order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also heard th