IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH

AND
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

Writ Petition No. 13792 of 2009 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN:

MISS SMRUTHY B S
D/O B.R. SUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
NO. 259, 5TH CROSS,
NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
J.P. NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE – 560 076 … PETITIONER

[By Sri T P Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Adv.]

AND:

1. D A PANDU MEMORIAL
R.V. DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
NO.CA 37, 24TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE,
J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

2. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS
AUTHORITY
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE – 560 012
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR … RESPONDENTS
 2

[By Sri M R Naik, Sr. Adv. for

M/s Naik & Naik Law Firm, Advs. for R1;
Sri N K Ramesh, Adv. for R2]

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1, TO
RETURN HER ORIGINAL 10TH AND PUC MARKS CARDS/TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE/STUDY CERTIFICATE AND OTHER ACADEMIC
RECORDS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THEM AT THE TIME OF
HER ADMISSION TO THE B.D.S. COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2008-09, FORTHWITH WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The learned Single Judge by his order dt.6.6.2009

has referred the matter to the Division Bench since he did

not agree with the view taken by another Single Judge in

W.P.No.17294/2007 dt. 2nd July 2008.

2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sungay for the

petitioner, Mr. M.R.Naik, learned senior counsel appearing

 3

for the 1st respondent and Mr. N.K.Ramesh, for the 2nd

respondent.

3. The facts leading to this petition are as hereunder:

The petitioner after passing 2nd year PUC examination

appeared for the common entrance test conducted by the

2nd respondent. Considering the ranking obtained by her

in the CET she could not get a seat in MBBS course.

However, she secured a Government seat for B.D.S. course

at the 1st respondent college for the academic year 2008-09.

After paying the fees payable for one year, she joined the 1st

year B.D.S. course and she submitted all her original

testimonies. After joining the college on 14.5.2009 she gave

a letter to the Principal of the 1st respondent college stating

that on account of financial difficulties and non-

cooperation from the Bank for grant of educational loan,

she is discontinuing the course and requested the college to

return her 10th standard and 12th standard marks card,

 4

Transfer Certificate/Study certificate to enable her to join

some other course.

4. Contending that her request for return of the

documents has not been considered, the present petition is

filed requesting the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus

directing the 1st respondent to return her original 10th and

2nd PUC marks cards so also her Transfer certificate and

Study certificate. She also sought for Interim prayer which

is similar to the main prayer.

5. The respondent contended that she did not leave

the college on account of financial difficulties. After

studying B.D.S. course for more than 7 to 8 months, since

she secured MBBS seat in the next academic year in order

to join the Medical college by inventing a false ground

sought for return of documents and that the college cannot

return the documents unless and until the college fees

payable for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th year B.D.S. course is paid by

her. It is contended by the College that on account of the

 5

petitioner discontinuing the college, the respondent college

could not admit any other student, as a result of which for

the next 3 years there would be loss of revenue for the

college and which loss has to be made good by the

petitioner on account of her mistake. It was contended by

the respondent – college, it has no objection to return the

documents subject to payment of the fee payable for the

remaining three years.

6. When the matter was listed before the Learned

Single Judge for consideration of Interim prayer, the

learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an

unreported Judgment of this Court passed by another

Single Judge on 2nd July 2008 in Mr.VIKAS P Vs.

PRINCIPAL, DON-BOSCO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

AND OTHERS, wherein the Learned Single Judge relying

upon para-8 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 6

 6

SCC 697, came to the conclusion that the college has no

right to demand the college fees/tuition fees for the future

years and directed the college to return the original

certificate/testimonials submitted by the petitioner therein.

The Learned Judge having considered the Judgment of the

Hon. Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF

EDUCATION was of the opinion that para-8 of the

Judgment has not been properly considered by the Learned

Single Judge. Since, he did not agree with the view

expressed by the Learned Single Judge, he referred the

matter for consideration by a Division Bench.

7. Accordingly, the matter is listed before us.

8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only

point to be considered by us is whether the Hon. Supreme

Court in para-8 in the case of ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF

EDUCATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA has ruled that a

college cannot demand or collect fees when a student has

left the college in midstream or not.

 7

9. The Learned Single Judge while considering the

W.P.NO.17294/2007 was of the opinion that the Supreme

Court has held that an Education Institution is entitled to

collect the fees for that particular semester/year in which

the student is prosecuting his/her studies and that in the

event of a student leaving the course in midstream no

question of compensation to be given to the institution.

Therefore, the Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that

college has to be directed to return the original documents

even though a student has left in the midstream.

10. We have perused para-8 of the Judgment in

ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION. On reading of para-8

of the Judgment, we are of the view that the Hon. Supreme

Court has not ruled that a college cannot demand for the

fees for the rest of the semester or academic year if a

student leaves the college in the midstream. For better

understanding of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, it

would be appropriate for us to quote para-8:

 8

“ 8. It must be mentioned that during arguments it was

pointed out to us that some educational institutions are
collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all
the years. It was submitted that this was done because the
institute was not sure whether the student would leave the
institute midstream. It was submitted that if the student left
the course in midstream then for the remaining years the
seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our
view an educational institution can only charge prescribed
fees for one semester/year. If an institution feels that any
particular student may leave in midstream then, at the
highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank
guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would
be received by the institute even if the student left in
midstream. If any educational institution has collected fees
in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used
by the institution. The balance fees must be kept invested in
fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. As and when fees fall
due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that
semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution. The rest
must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall
due. At the end of the course the interest earned on these
deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees
were collected in advance.”
 9

11. On conjoint reading of paras-7 and 8 of the

Judgment, we are of the view that an Education Institution

can only charge prescribed fee for one semester/year. If an

Institution feels that any particular student may leave in

midstream then bond/bank guarantee for the balance fees

for the whole course would be received by the Institution,

even if the student left in the midstream.

12. Therefore, we are clear that the Hon. Supreme

Curt has ruled that, in advance for the whole course, the

college cannot collect the fees and if the college is of the

opinion that the student may leave in the midstream then it

can demand a student to execute the bond/bank guarantee

for the balance fees for the whole course. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge while considering the case of VIKAS P

Vs. THE PRINCIPAL, DON-BOSCO INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY IN W.P.NO.17294/2007 has wrongly

interpreted para-8 of the Judgment of the Apex Court and

has erroneously granted relief to the petitioner therein. In

 10

such circumstances, if another Single Judge without

expressing any opinion on the Judgment of the Learned

Single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench,

on careful consideration of para-8 of the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,

we are of the opinion the Hon. Supreme Court never ruled

that a College cannot demand the student who leave in the

midstream for payment of balance fees for the whole

course.

13. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Naik, the learned

senior counsel for respondent-1 that on account of the

petitioner getting a MBBS course for the next academic

year, the petitioner cannot cause loss to the institution. As

a matter of fact, we are of the view that the petitioner

leaving the course in the middle has deprived of a Govt.

seat to any other eligible candidate for B.D.S. course under

Government quota. Now on account of her conduct she not

 11

only caused loss of revenue to the 1st respondent college,

deprived a seat for another eligible student who was willing

to become a Dentist. We are also of the opinion a time has

come for the Government to make proper rules to prevent

changing the course unnecessarily which would result in

depriving the chance of getting Government seat of any

other meritorious candidate. We are of the view that if the

petitioner was inclined to take M.B.B.S. seat, she could

have taken chance in the next academic year. Without

doing so opting a B.D.S. course, she has given up the seat

in the midstream. Therefore, a time has come for the

Government to make necessary amendment to the rules, to

plug such loop holes.

14. In the result, we dismiss this petition. The Bank

guarantee executed by the petitioner is ordered to be

invoked by the respondent and we hold that the order

passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.NO.17294/07

dt.2nd July 2008 is incorrect in view of the Judgment in

 12

ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION by the Hon. Supreme

court.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

Ak