IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.NO.42781 OF 2016

G.Mahendran

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director,

Directorate of Technical Education

Sardar Patel Road, Guindy,

Chennai 600025.

2.The Principal,

Sri Sakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology,

(Thiru. S. Sengoda Gounder Educational & Charitable Trust,

Sri Sakthi Nagar, Chinniyampalayam PO

Coimbatore 641034.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

directing the 1st respondent, to take appropriate steps to

recover amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the 2nd respondent and hand

over to the petitioner.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.P.Saravanan

For Respondent

:

Mr.Jaya Prakash

Government Advocate [R1]

Mr.Kandhan Durai Sami [R2]

O R D E R

The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the 1st

respondent to take appropriate steps to recover amount of

Rs.1,35,000/- from the 2nd respondent and hand over to the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that his daughter has completed her

Higher Secondary course and joined 1st year B.E. (Electrical and

Electronics Engineering) Course in the 2nd respondent College

under Management Quota for the academic year 2016-2017. The

petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-, which consists College

fee for the academic year 2016-2017. On 28.07.2016, Rs.30,000/-

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

has been paid towards transportation charges, books, notes,

fees, uniform fees, lunch and refreshment charges.

3. The petitioner states that her daughter was trying for

medical seat as she had attended the NEET examination conducted

by the CBSE on 24.07.2016. After joining the engineering course

in the 2nd respondent college, the daughter of the petitioner

secured medical seat through NEET examination. She approached

the 2nd respondent for transfer certificate and Mark Sheet. The

2nd respondent refused to issue the certificate and demanded a

sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The petitioner further submit that though

his daughter joined the 2nd respondent college, she attended

only five days classes and therefore, the petitioner is entitled

for the refund of the entire fee.

4. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st

respondent to initiate action to recover the fee paid by the

petitioner from the 2nd respondent and pay the same to the

petitioner. In view of the fact that no action has been taken,

the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ

petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission

that even as per the criteria fixed for refund of fee by the

Anna University, in the event of student withdrawing his name

before the starting of the course, the entire fee collected from

the student, after deducting the processing fee of not more than

Rs.1000/-, is to be settled. Therefore, the respondents have

violated the criteria of refund of fee.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of

the 1st respondent made a submission that the Directorate of

Technical Education only grant approval of admission made by the

college and they are no way connected with the refund of fee.

7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relying on the

letter issued by the Anna University dated 07.08.2017 made a

submission that no doubt, in the event of a student withdrawing

before the starting of the course, the entire fee collected from

the students is to be refunded. However, in case, the vacant

seat is not filled, the institution should refund the security

deposit and return the original documents.

8. Relying on the said clause stipulated by the Anna

University in letter dated 07.08.2017, the learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent filed a counter by stating that the daughter

of the petitioner gave