101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:29.01.2026 SANGEETA SHARMA ....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Abhijeet Sohal, Advocate and Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate with Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- deposited by the petitioner towards the admission fee in respect of her daughter, who had taken admission in respondent No. 2-Institute. A further prayer has been made for award of interest on such refund.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner’s daughter applied for admission to the Master of Business Administration (MBA) Programme 2024–2026 at the Indian Institute of Management, Amritsar. The admission was offered pursuant to a prospectus issued by the Institute, which contained a specific clause permitting students to withdraw by a particular date, after which no refund of fees was to be allowed. The petitioner was not only aware of such clause but had also signed an affidavit admitting the contents and terms of the admission procedure. It was after the cut-off date that the petitioner withdrew from the admission process, solely on the ground that the petitioner’s daughter had secured admission in another institute closer to her native place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s daughter had not attended even a single class and that the cut-

off date fixed for withdrawal by the candidate is arbitrary.

4. The petition is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Institute, who submits that the admission process must have sanctity. Candidates availing admission are given the option to withdraw till a particular date, after which the seats remain blocked. It is with this intent that the Institute does not refund any fee if a candidate opts out after the last cut-off date.

5. In matters of admission, where the process is undertaken pursuant to a uniform Brochure, the Courts would ordinarily not be inclined to interfere, if it is otherwise shown that the process has been uniformly followed.

6. The petitioner in the present case was clearly aware of the clause of admission policy. An affidavit on record clearly acknowledges such fact. The petitioner withdrew after the cut-off date only because his daughter obtained admission elsewhere. The process having been undertaken in terms of the prospectus, and the refund being beyond the cut-off date, we find no reason to take exception to the action of the respondent No.2-Institute in not refunding the entire amount. Part of the amount deposited by the petitioner has already been refunded. In such circumstances, no further refund is permissible.

7. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed.

8. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA]

JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR]

JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2026

Rahul Joshi

1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No

2. Whether Reportable Yes/No