Principal Kannur Medical College, Anjarakkandi, Kannur v. Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala and Hathif Majeed

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.18143 OF 2019(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE PRINCIPAL, KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, ANJARAKKANDI, KANNUR, KERALA 670 612** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES IN KERALA, T.C 15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, M.P APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.** **2 HATHIF MAJEED, S/O. KANNIYAN ABDUL MAJEED, KANNIYAN HOUSE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 328** **R1 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2020,THE COURT ON 12-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -2- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Dated this the 12[th] day of June 2020 ## **Gopinath, J.** The admissions granted by the Kannur Medical College to the MBBS Course, in that college, in the year 2016-17, were found to be illegal and contrary to law by the Admission Supervisory Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the 'ASC') constituted in terms of Section 4 of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 Act, [Act 19 of 2006] (now repealed), through an order dated 14.11.2016. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with this order and it became final. As a consequence, the admissions granted to nearly 150 students had to be cancelled. Though the State promulgated an ordinance to regularize the admission, the said ordinance was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 2. On 25.07.2018 there was a recommendation by the ASC to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, to withdraw the affiliation/recognition of Kannur Medical College for the academic year 2018-2019. These proceedings were found to be in order by a Division Bench of this Court through a judgment dated 1.8.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 25895 of 2018. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court of India through S.L.P (C) No. 23225 of 2018 and connected cases. A consent order was passed on W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -3- 29.08.2018 in S.L.P (C) No. 23225 of 2018 and connected cases, which order is on record in this case. We are concerned here only with the 1[st] direction that forms part of the consent order dated 29.08.2018 which, provides that the college shall return an amount equivalent to the double of the amount collected from the students together with refund of the fee deposited by each one of the 150 students, with the college, by 04-092018. There was a further direction that the Admission Supervisory Committee shall ascertain and report as to whether the amounts in question have been refunded, as directed. On 1.9.2018, the Admission Supervisory Committee filed its report which _inter alia_ suggested that the amounts directed to be paid/refunded to each of the students have not been paid/refunded in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Therefore a further direction was issued by the Supreme Court on 4.10.2018 through which it was directed that the Admission Supervisory Committee shall determine the amount payable to each one of the students. The ASC has passed individual orders in respect of claims raised before it by the students/ guardians. In this writ petition we are concerned with an order passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee, in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court , determining the amount payable by the petitioner college on account of the fees and other amounts collected from one Hathif Majeed. W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -4- 3. The question of maintainability of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been questioned at the admission stage, a Division Bench of this Court, to which one amongst us (A.M.Shaffique.J.) was a party, came to the conclusion through an order dated 20.2.2020, that the Writ Petition was maintainable. Therefore we do not propose to go into that issue again. 4. Before we proceed to determine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order, we must notice the observation of the Supreme Court in the order dated 4.10.2018 that the quantum of amount collected by the College from each student and what amount has been refunded is a seriously disputed fact and also notice the following direction issued to the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) by the Supreme Court. _“The ASC_ _**to consider the material which may be placed on record by the respective parties and take a decision in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence adduced** in each of the case with respect to each of the students_ . (emphasis is ours) Thus it is clear that the direction given to the ASC was to individually determine the case of each student, in accordance with law, having due regard to the material which may be placed on record and the evidence adduced by the parties. Since the entire exercise undertaken by the ASC was in terms of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, it goes without saying that the ASC was bound to conclude its determination strictly in terms of the direction issued by the Supreme Court. W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -5- 5. We have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, Learned Senior Counsel and Smt. Nisha George for the petitioner, Smt. Mary Benjamin, Learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent (the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee) and Sri. Sreedhar Ravindran learned Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, the complainant before the 1[st] respondent Committee. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ASC had determined the issue based on mere surmises and conjectures and that there was no reliable material before the committee to hold that the amount in question was payable to the complainant/student. He states that the college has not received any amount other than the admitted amount of Rs.11.65 lakhs and therefore no further liability could be fastened on the college since an amount of Rs.23.30 lakhs being the double the amount of Rs.11.65 lakhs has already been refunded. The Learned Counsel appearing for the ASC would point out that the ASC which was a committee under Act 19 of 2006 has not been impleaded in this writ petition and this, according to her is a fatal defect. She states that the first respondent herein is the body constituted under the enactment which repealed and replaced Act 19 of 2006, namely Act 15 of 2017. On merits she would contend that the College had indulged in severe malpractices resulting in the orders against them which have already been noticed above. She would urge that we must not interfere with the orders which have been issued by the ASC after careful scrutiny of all material W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -6- placed before it. The learned counsel for the student/complainant would support the findings in the order and urge that we should not interfere with the order. 6. We must first consider the question as to whether the nonimpleadment of the ASC should be a ground to refuse consideration of the matter on its merits. We are of the considered opinion that the ASC is not a necessary party to these proceedings since the committee is not required to justify its findings before this Court in any manner. We are fortified in taking such a view in the light of the law laid down by a 3 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in _**M.S Kazi v. Muslim Education Society & ors - (2016) IX SCC 263**_ . 7. The ASC has, on 20-04-2019 determined the amount payable to student/complainant to be a sum of Rs.45,39,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.23,30,000/- already paid by the college. We have gone through the order dated 20-04-2019 which is impugned before us and perused the material produced before the ASC in order to determine whether the order passed by the ASC was sustainable and in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. 8. The ASC has considered the following material/documents to reach its conclusion regarding the amount payable by the college to the student / complainant. W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -7- |**Sl. No.**|**Particulars**|**Document**<br>**number referred**<br>**to in the order of**<br>**the ASC**| |---|---|---| |1|Affidavit filed by Sri. K. Abdul Majeed, father of<br>the student / complainant.|Produced as<br>Ext.P5 in this<br>writpetition| |2|Intimation given to Sri. K. Abdul Majeed<br>regarding acceptance of offer for sale of 40,000<br>shares in Malabar Institute of Medical<br>Sciences.|A1| |3|Statement of SB Account of Sri. K. Abdul<br>Majeed (father of the student / complainant) in<br>respect of two of his accounts with South<br>Indian Bank.|A2 & A3| |4|Statement of SB Account of Sri. Mohammed<br>Jaleel(brother of Sri. K. Abdul Majeed)|A5| |5|Statement of SB Account of Sri. Mohammed<br>Najeeb(brother of Sri. K. Abdul Majeed)|A6| 9. As already noticed, the ASC passed Ext.P7 order directing the college to refund an amount of Rs.45,39,000/- to the student. This figure was arrived at by accepting the case of the father of the student that he had paid a total amount of Rs.40,17,000/- to the college authorities. After deducting a sum of Rs.11,65,000/- which was the amount collected as fee (including hostel fee), the Committee held that the amount collected over and above the fee was Rs.28,52,000/-. In terms of Ext.P1 order of the Supreme Court the college was required to refund the fees and double the amount collected over and above the fees. Therefore the Committee determined the amount to be refunded in the following manner. W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -8- |Sl. No.|Particulars|Amount| |---|---|---| |1|Fee includinghostel fee|Rs.11,65,000/-| |2|Twice the amount collected over and above<br>the fee(Rs.28,52,000 x 2)|Rs.57,04,000/-| |3|Amount alreadyrefunded|Rs.23,30,000/-| |4|Balancepayable(1 + 2)- 3|Rs.45,39,000/-| 10. According to the college, they have received only Rs.10 lakhs towards fee and Rs.1,65,000/- towards hostel fee. In order to prove the source of Rs.40.17 lakhs, the proof affidavit referred to above had been filed by the father of the student _inter alia_ stating the source of funds for raising the total amount of Rs.40,17,000/-. The Committee accepted the version with reference to Exts.A1, A2, A3, A5 & A6. 11. We have perused the documents referred to as Exts.A1, A2, A3, A5 & A6 and the proof affidavit filed by Sri. Abdul Majeed (father of the student), in order to determine whether there was acceptable proof regarding the source of funds to have paid a sum of Rs.40,17,000/- to the college. As already noticed the Supreme Court had clearly indicated in its order dated 04-10-2018 that the determination of the amount payable shall be on the basis of the evidence and the materials placed before the Committee. Exhibit A1 would prove that the father of the student had received a sum of Rs.27,32,200/- by sale of shares. Indeed this is also borne out by the credit entries in Ext.A3. Exhibit A2 will show that the father of the student had withdrawn a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his NRE account with South Indian Bank. Exhibit A3 will show that he had W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -9- withdrawn a total amount of Rs.10,90,000/- between 23-03-2016 and the last date on which payment is alleged to have been made (08-09-2016). There is a further withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- on 20-10-2016. Sri. Ahammed Najeeb & Sri. Abdul Jaleel, are brothers of the student's father. There are cash withdrawals from their accounts at the relevant time. It is the case of Sri. Abdul Majeed (father of the student) that he had borrowed a total of Rs.14,00,000/- from his brothers. We notice from Ext.A5 document that in the case of Sri. Abdul Jaleel K. there are several cash withdrawals in between the period from 18-07-2016 to 08-09-2016. It is specific case of Sri. Abdul Majeed in cross examination that he had received only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from Sri. Abdul Jaleel. As far as the borrowing from Sri. Ahammed Najeeb is concerned it is seen from Ext.A6 that there is a withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- on 12-07-2016 which clearly makes it probable that this amount was withdrawn for the benefit of his brother Sri Abdul Majeed. We have no reason to disbelieve the version of Sri. Abdul Majeed that he had received a total of Rs.14,00,000/- from his brothers namely Sri. Abdul Jaleel and Sri. Ahammed Najeeb. Naturally when amounts are received in addition to the regular fee, no receipt would be issued. Therefore, the source of fund is the only method for any person to prove their claim. We find that there is sufficient source for the availability of a total of Rs.26,90,000/-. We cannot take into account any withdrawal after 8.9.2016 since it is the specific case of Sri. Abdul Majeed W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -10- that the last date on which payment was made was 8.9.2016. There is no dispute that Rs.11,65,000/- was received towards tuition fee and hostel fee which means that the balance amount is collected over and above the fee payable. Therefore Rs.15,25,000/- would be the additional amount collected. The amounts payable/refundable by the college is redetermined as under. |Sl. No.|Particulars|Amount| |---|---|---| |1|Fees includinghostel fee|Rs.11,65,000/-| |2|Double the amount collected over and above<br>the fee(Rs.15,25,000 x 2)|Rs.30,50,000/-| |3|Total amount payable in terms of the direction<br>of the Supreme Court|Rs.42,15,000/-| |4|Amount already paid|Rs.23,30,000/-| |5|Balance amountpayable|Rs.18,85,000/-| Exhibit P7 order shall stand modified accordingly. In the result the writ petition is allowed in part. The college shall refund an amount of Rs.18,85,000/- to the 2[nd] respondent without any further delay and at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which further steps in accordance law with shall be taken by the 1st respondent. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** **AMG** W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -11- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18143/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLA (C) NO. 23225/2018 DATED 2908-2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLA(C) NO. 23225/2018 DATED 0410-2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS/ STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24-09-2016 ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE FOR THE REMITTANCE OF FEE OF RS. 11.65 LAKHS** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE FATHER AND RELATIVES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ASC 100/16/MBBS/KMC DATED 06-09-2016 AND ISSUED ON 09-09-2016 BY THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ASC(P) 91/18/HO/TVPM/MBBS/KMC DATED 20-04-2019 ISSUED BY THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R2 (a)PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF WITNESS.** W.P (C) No.18143/2019 -12-