SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M.Meena Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No.49758 of 2025 | W.M.P.No.55643 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.B.N.Sinega
For the Respondents:Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate for R1
Mrs.M.Sneha, Standing Counsel for R2
Mrs.C.Latharani, Standing Counsel for R3
Mr.N.Manokaran, for R4

The bond agreement is valid and enforceable, and the original certificates must be returned despite non-payment of the bond.

Headnote:(1) Statute Analysis: The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration of clause (6) in the bond agreement as null and void. The petitioner, after admission to JKKN Dental College, faced psychological issues and ultimately discontinued the course. (2)

Issues: The central issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of original certificates without paying the bond amount. The court highlighted that the bond was valid and enforceable, referencing the Supreme Court's precedent. (3)

Result: The petition to declare clause (6) as illegal was rejected, yet the petitioner is to receive his certificates within a week without waiting for a certified copy of the order.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claims regarding bond invalidity and psychological health issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discussions on legal precedents relating to bond enforcement. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis on service conditions and responsibilities under agreements. (Para 5 , 6)
4. consideration of the petitioner's well-being and implications for document return. (Para 7)
5. final ruling on the enforceability of the bond and certificate return. (Para 8)

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.49758 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.55643 of 2025 M.Meena Vignesh .. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Namakkal Kavingar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education, No.162, Periyar E.V.R. High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

3. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

4. The Dean, JKKN Dental College and Hospital, Natarajapuram, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal District – 638 183. .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Declaration, declaring the clause (6) in Agreement bond, dated 11.09.2023 executed by the petitioner at the time of admission to the respondent No.4 college as null and void, not binding on the petitioner as he discontinued the course.

For Petitioner : Ms.B.N.Sinega For Respondent : Mr.E.Sundaram, Government Advocate for R1 : Mrs.M.Sneha, Standing Counsel for R2 : Mrs.C.Latharani, Standing Counsel for R3 : Mr.N.Manokaran, for R4

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of declaration declaring clause (6) in the bond agreement dated 11.09.2023, executed by the petitioner at the time of admission to the fourth respondent college, as null and void and not binding on the petitioner, as he discontinued the course.

2. The petitioner, upon completing XII standard and scoring 409 marks in the NEET examination, secured admission in the fourth respondent college, namely, JKKN Dental College and Hospital, Natarajapuram, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal district, for the academic year 2023-2024. The petitioner had attempted to commit suicide on 27.08.2024. He had to spend a large sum of more than Rs.6,00,000/- for protracted treatment and, afterwards, he rejoined the college. Again, being unable to cope with the academic pressure, the petitioner attempted to commit suicide by hanging in the hospital room and was rescued by his classmates. Thereafter, he discontinued the course and enrolled in a B.Tech., Engineering course at another institution. When the other institution demanded the production of original documents, the petitioner approached the fourth respondent college. The college refused to hand over the original documents, and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Even though the petitioner sought larger relief, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants and Residents Vs. Union of India and Ors.1, the learned Counsel argued only for the return of the certificates. The learned Counsel highlighted the extreme circumstances where the petitioner was initially helped by his grandmother and, due to

1 (2019) 8 SCC 607 depression and medical expenses, the petitioner had to undergo treatment.

4. In reply thereto, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent would cite the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Director of Medical Education and Anr. Vs. M. Aarthy2 in support of the proposition that the original certificates can be returned only if the bond amount is paid by the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, both sides’ learned Counsel presented the judgments for and on behalf of the proposition and emphasised their respective points.

5. The point for consideration is that whether the petitioner will be entitled for return of the original certificates without payment of the bond amount.

6. In this regard, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top