IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.640 of 2024 Gedee Public School Rep By Its Correspondent Shanthalakshmi Jayakumar No 634 / 2 Chettipalayam Road Eachanari, Coimbatore 641 021 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Presiding Officer Permanent Lok Adalat Coimbatore District.

2. Sudha Mahesh ..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1^st Respondent dated 08.11.2023 passed in P.L.A No 18 / 2023 on the file of Permanent Lok Adalat, Coimbatore District and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for R-1 No Appearance for R-2

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the 1^st respondent in P.L.A.No.18 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023 in and by which, the petitioner was directed to refund the admission fee of Rs.40,000/- to the 2^nd respondent.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent approached the petitioner school seeking admission to her minor son viz., Navaneethan to Class XI. Based on the said request, the school granted provincial admission and the 2^nd respondent remitted the admission fee to the tune of Rs.40,000/- After Board exam results were published, a seat was allotted in Group-I. However, the 2^nd respondent, thereafter, submitted a letter seeking to withdraw her son’s admission and sought for refund of the admission fee. As the School did not refund the admission fee, the 2^nd respondent filed the petition before the 1^st respondent in P.L.A.No.18 of 2023 seeking refund of admission fees to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. The 1^st respondent, after adjudication, allowed the said petition and directed the petitioner admission fee in favour of the 2^nd respondent.

Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Lok Adalat is grossly perverse as the materials in and by which the respondent has undertaken not to seek for refund of admission fee has not been properly appreciated by the authority. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when the admitted provided is sought to be rejected by the candidate, the school would suffer the monetary loss and only to safeguard its interest against such rejection of the admission by the candidate, the admission fee which has been collected is not refunded. Further, when the respondent has undertaken not to seek for admission court fee, without appreciating the same, the authority has passed the impugned order which requires to be interfered with.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the authority has given a clear finding that no material has been placed by the petitioner to establish that the seat which was not occupied by the candidate was kept unfilled thereby the monetary loss has been caused to the petitioner. In the absence of any material to show that the seat has not been filled, the authority has held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to enrich itself by taking two fees for a single seat and had rightly directed the petitioner to refund the said amount and the said order does not require any interference.

5. This Court, considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that initially, admission was granted to the 2^nd respondent’s son and taking up the said admission, the 2^nd respondent had paid the admission fee. However, at a later point of time, the 2^nd respondent had sought for refund of the admission fee by not admitting her son in the petitioner school. No doubt, it is true that the 2^nd respondent has undertaken that she will not seek for refund of the admission fee. However, at the same ti