Mohandas College of Engineering & Technology represented by its Chief Administrator, Nantancode, Trivandrum v. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MOHANDAS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 003** **BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, RAM MOHAN PALACE, COCHIN 682 031 2 VANCHIYOOR K SIVASANKARAN NAIR "SOUPARNIKA, VRA A43, TC 27/1790(3) NEAR KHADI BOARD, VANDHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 3 M.SGIRISH KUMAR -DOBY ADVS. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR** **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT MARY BENJAMIN SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** The petitioner is a Self-Financing College, which is concerned with the order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges (for short “the Committee”) produced at Ext.P7. The second respondent is the parent of the third respondent, the latter of whom is the student who got admitted to a course in the Management quota in the petitioner's College. 2. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Ext.P1 is the Government order which brought out the various terms and conditions under which the admission to Professional Degree Courses for the academic year 2013-14 was to be carried out by the Self-Financing Engineering Colleges under the Kerala Self-Financing Engineering College Managements' WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -3- Association. The fee structure as seen in Ext.P1 has also been approved by the Committee. The specific case set up in the writ petition is that the Committee in directing refund of the entire fees, set at naught the provision for liquidated damages as agreed to, by the Government of Kerala; which provision also stood approved by the Committee. The provision for liquidated damages is found in Clause 19 wherein, the educational agency could retain the tuition fee remitted by the student in the event a student admitted under the Management quota or Government quota discontinues his/her studies for any reason at any time after 15.7.2013. 3. The third respondent in this case, though got admitted to the Management course, discontinued the same on 14.8.2013; after the cut off date prescribed when the WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -4- admissions could not be subsequently made. 4. The learned counsel for the party respondents and the Standing Counsel for the Committee however submits that in the subject year, the cut off date was extended to 15.8.2013. The learned Senior Counsel however refutes such contention and brings to our notice the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Counsel for Technical Education and others [(2013) 3 SCC 385]** , by which the condition of last date stipulated was extended by the Honourable Supreme Court for making stray admissions to fill up those seats remaining vacant even after closure of admission. The same is seen incorporated in the Prospectus of 2013 as Clause 12.6.8. The contention of the respondents' counsel is also that the student having discontinued studies WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -5- prior to the closure of admission, ie; on 15.8.2013, there could be no liquidated damages taken from the student. 5. We notice the distinction we brought out in W.P.(c) No.31568 of 2015 dated 27.5.2019 insofar as the liquidated damages prescribed for Management seats and Government seats. Here, the third respondent had secured admission in the Management quota for B.Tech Course in the SelfFinancing Institution, quite aware of the stipulation that if after the last date the student discontinues studies, he would have to pay the liquidated damages to the extent of the entire course fee. We need not labour much on the dispute regarding the last date as to whether it is on 15.7.2013 or 15.8.2013. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, 15[th] of August is a declared holiday and the student admittedly discontinued studies on 14.8.2018. In that WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -6- context, there is absolutely no possibility of the College having admitted another student to the seat vacated by the third respondent. 6. In defense, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically points to the averments in Ext.P5 complaint wherein the student had stated that in the division in which the third respondent was studying the student strength was 61 as against the sanctioned intake of 60; approved by the AICTE and affiliated by the University. The 3[rd] respondents seat cannot have remained vacant is the submission. However, the learned Senior Counsel points out that the AICTE itself had prescribed a tuition fee waiver scheme by which three students per Batch are mandated to be admitted in excess of the sanctioned strength in supernumerary seats; to which allotment is made by the Commissioner of Entrance WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -7- Examination (CEE) from students belonging to marginalized sections of society, handicapped and other categories suffering one or other disability as specified by the AICTE. The said stipulation is available in the prospectus also. Those three students hence are permitted in addition to the sanctioned strength of 60, is the specific submission. 7. Yet again we notice that even according to the second respondent, the third respondent discontinued his studies in the B.Tech Course only by reason of his having secured 35[th] rank in the Entrance Examination conducted by the CEE to the LLB course. In fact, the Committee had specifically noticed that the CEE had published the result of the entrance examination for LLB on 6.8.2013. If the student had vacated the seat immediately thereafter, probably there could have been a contention taken that the Management WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -8- could have admitted yet another person in that seat. Here the student waited till 14.8.2013 to submit an application for transfer, in which event the College was disabled from making any admissions to the Management quota vacated by the third respondent. 8. In such circumstances, we do not think that the Committee was correct in having directed refund of the entire amounts paid. We see that total amount of Rs.4,46,065/- was paid by the student, out of which Rs.8,846/- was refunded to the student. We see from Ext.P1 that the annual tuition fee prescribed for a Management seat is Rs.99,000/-. Hence, total fees would come to Rs.3,96,000/-. The College has already refunded some amounts and if there is any other amount remaining with the College, which has not already been utilised by way of WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -9- payment to the University or otherwise; in excess of Rs.3,96,000/-, the same shall be refunded within a period of one month from today. The writ petition would stand allowed setting aside the impugned order, with the above observation. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/JUDGE** **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/29.5 WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -10- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-06-2013 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION(G) DEPARTMENT** - **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 14-08-2013** - **EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-08-2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-08-2013 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11-09-2013 FILED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN,SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES** - **EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15-02-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE** - **EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-03-2014 ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE** - **EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28-03-2014 OF DO** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P4 NOTICE.** WP(C).No. 10581 of 2014 -11- **R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO THE REPLY NOTICE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **R2(C): TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED 14.8.2013 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** **R2(D): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AICTE/SWRO/COMPLAINTS/ 2013/183524 DATED 23.8.2013 OF THE DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE), ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL, MAR BASELIOSE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY.** **R2(E): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/07/2014/CEE/RTI DATED 9.1.2014 BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.**