- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramdeo Baba Kamala Nehru Engineering College And Others v. Sanjay Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant 1 is a private, unaided engineering college in Maharashtra; the remaining appellants are its office-bearers. In the academic year 1997-1998, Respondent 1 obtained a “payment seat” after the regular admission process had concluded and remitted Rs 96,000 as tuition fees and Rs 500 as caution money. Within two months he withdrew because he secured admission elsewhere and requested a refund. The college refused, prompting Respondent 1 to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus for refund. The High Court directed the college to refund Rs 95,500 (tuition fee minus Rs 1,000 plus full caution money). The college appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a private, unaided educational institution is amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters concerning refund of fees.
- What quantum of deduction from the tuition fee is permissible on cancellation of admission—Rs 1,000 as applied by the High Court, or Rs 10,000 as stipulated by the applicable Government Order dated 1997-1999.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The writ petition was not maintainable because Appellant 1, being a private unaided institution, is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- No substantive dispute was raised about the quantum of payment made by the respondent; the focus remained on the question of maintainability.
Respondent's (Writ-Petitioner’s) Position
- Sought full refund of tuition fees and caution money in accordance with applicable government policy, subject to permissible deductions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shri Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691; AIR 1989 SC 1607 | Even private bodies discharging public duties are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. | The High Court relied on this precedent to overrule the appellants’ preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable; the Supreme Court saw no reason to differ. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 sparingly. It noted:
- Admitted facts established that the respondent paid the fees and withdrew within the relevant period; the Government Order (Annexure P-1) governed such refunds.
- Dismissing the writ on a technical plea would compel the student to file a civil suit, an inequitable outcome the Court declined to impose.
- While upholding the High Court’s decision to entertain the writ, the Court found the High Court applied an outdated 1994 circular permitting only a Rs 1,000 deduction. The contemporaneous 1997-1999 circular capped the deduction at 40% or Rs 10,000, whichever was lower.
- Because Rs 10,000 is lower than 40% of Rs 96,000, the permissible deduction is Rs 10,000.
Holding and Implications
MODIFIED AND DISPOSED OF: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision to grant relief but modified the refund amount. The respondent is entitled to Rs 86,500 (Rs 86,000 of tuition fee after a Rs 10,000 deduction, plus Rs 500 caution money). The appellants must refund this sum within six weeks; no order as to costs.
Implications: The judgment reiterates that private educational institutions performing public functions may be subject to writ jurisdiction for issues such as fee refund. However, it sets no new precedent beyond harmonising the refund amount with the governing circular.
Order
1. Appellant 1 is an engineering college in the State of Maharashtra. Other appellants are office-bearers of the college. In the year 1997-98, Respondent 1 secured admission against payment seat and paid Rs 96,000 by way of tuition fees and Rs 500 by way of caution money. He also made certain other payments with which we are not concerned. This admission was secured after the process of admission was over. However, within two months from the date of admission the respondent withdrew his admission as he had got admission elsewhere. He sought for a refund of the tuition fee and the caution money paid by him. The refund having been not allowed by the appellants, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to make the refund.
2. The High Court has allowed the petition directing a sum of Rs 95,500 to be refunded. The figure of Rs 95,500 has been arrived at by the High Court by deducting an amount of Rs 1000 from the tuition fees as according to a GO issued by the State Government Rs 1000 was liable to be deducted while making the refund. The only plea which was raised before the High Court on behalf of the appellants was that Appellant 1 being a private unaided educational institution, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution did not lie against it. No other plea was raised before the High Court. The factum of payment of the tuition fee and caution money by the respondent to Appellant 1 is not disputed. The preliminary objection raised by the appellants has been overruled by the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in Shri Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691, AIR 1989 SC 1607.
3. An order of the Government of Maharashtra which admittedly governs the payment of tuition fees etc. has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, according to which, in the event of admission being cancelled after the process of admission was over but up to 31st October, refund of tuition fee shall be made after making deduction of 40% or Rs 10,000 whichever is lesser. The applicability of the government order to Appellant 1 is not disputed.
4. In the memo of appeal filed before this Court also the principal plea raised on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the appellant is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. In our opinion, on the admitted facts of this case, the impugned order of the High Court is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The respondent had sought admission against a payment seat. In the event of the admission being cancelled at the behest of either side, the caution money and the tuition fee were liable to be refunded subject to the permissible deductions. We do not deem it appropriate to uphold the technical plea of the appellants and drive the respondent student to the need of filing a civil suit. The view taken by the High Court is just and equitable and therefore need not be interfered with.
6. However, still the appellant is entitled to a limited relief. It appears that the High Court while directing a deduction of Rs 1000 only out of the tuition fee of Rs 96,000 paid by the respondent relied on a government circular of the year 1994, which circular, it is conceded at the Bar had ceased to be applicable to the admissions during the period 1997 to 1999, wherein the circular Annexure P-1, referred to hereinabove was in force.
7. The impugned order is, therefore, modified only to the extent that the appellants were entitled to a deduction of Rs 10,000 out of the tuition fees and, therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to a refund of Rs 86,000 out of the tuition fee and of Rs 500, being caution money making a total of Rs 86,500. The order under appeal is modified accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. The appellants shall make the refund within a period of six weeks from today.
Alert