Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petition disposed with directions granting...

Talwin Joseph and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
  • Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date
2022-04-08
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court held that there cannot be a fixed formula for concessions in such circumstances, but acknowledged the unique disruption caused by Covid-19 and the college’s role as a first-line Covid facility, which deprived students of hospital access. It directed a 10% concession in the 2020-21 annual fee for the petitioners before the court, amounting to Rs.19,000, with the total payable reduced from Rs.1,89,000 to Rs.1,70,000. The concession is limited to the petitioners before the court, and if the College has already collected the full amount, the concession shall be adjusted in future years. Petitioners who have not paid must pay after availing of the concession. The writ petition was disposed accordingly with these directions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions granting 10% fee concession for 2020-21 to petitioners before the court; Rs.19,000 concession; payable Rs.1,70,000; adjustment if already collected; applies only to petitioners before the court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • TALWIN JOSEPH
  • SREERAM S.KAMMATH
  • AASHIKA P.A. PANCHAIKKAL PARAMBIL
  • NIVEDHYA P.A.
  • AKHILESH R.S.
  • NAYANA M.S.
  • FEMINA S.WILSON NABHAS
  • ASWANY S.VIJAYAN
  • ANURADHA SHAJI ANUSHAM
  • HAFINA HABEEB
  • AISWARYA V.
  • DEVIKA SIVADAS DEVIKA
  • ANUPAMA B.
  • ANGEL P.ANTO
  • KRISHNENDU
  • AKSHAYA VATTAPARAMBIL
  • RIYA JOSE KURIYAPARAMBIL
  • HARITHA THOZHUTHUNGAL
  • ANJU B. THARAYIL
  • DEVIKA MADHU SUDHAN
  • NITHA NOURIN K. KALODATH
  • JAMSHEENA M. MUTHUVADAN
  • SINANA T. THEKKEDATH
  • GOPIKA K.C. KARUKAYIL
  • ATHUL NADH SREESHYLAM
  • BLESSY JOSE CHETTANIYIL
  • AFNA NASEER ALIYAKUNNEL
  • GOPIKA SANAL THAMARASSERIL
  • ANNA ELIZABETH MATHEW KOIPURATHU
  • SHAHANA MOL K.H.
  • VEENA C.VISWAM
  • JAIBY VARGHESE MANGATTU MANKUZHA
  • AMINA T.A.
  • NAYANA M.SURESH MUTHALAPPARAMBHIL
  • APARNA SHENOY VALIYAPARAMBU PUTHEN MADOM

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Ayush Department, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala represented by its Secretary
  • Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College, Nellikuzhi, Kothamangalam represented by its Principal
  • The Manager, Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College, Nellikuzhi
  • The Kerala University of Health Sciences represented by its Registrar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri S. Manu
  • • Adv. Sri K.S. Prenjith Kumar
  • • Adv. Bea Mary Benny

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Adv. George Poonthottam (Sr.)
  • • Adv. Smt. Chitra P. George
  • • Adv. P. Sreekumar, SC, Kerala University of Health Sciences
  • • Adv. Nisha George
  • • Adv. Bijoy Chandran, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Talwin Joseph and 34 other BAMS degree students of Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College, Kothamangalam, approached the Kerala High Court with a grievance that the Covid-19 disruption in 2020-21 deprived them of the usual facilities and asked for a pro rata concession in the annual fee for that academic year. The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian School, Jodhpur and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (MANU/SC/0338/2021), which directed a 25% reduction in fees under similar exigencies. The College countered that despite the disruption, online instruction was provided and staff salaries were paid fully during the pandemic; the College argued there were no savings in infrastructure that could justify fee concession. The High Court observed that the college functioned as a first-line Covid treatment facility for a substantial portion of 2020-21, which deprived students of hospital facilities normally available. It held there is no fixed formula for concessions in such scenarios, but found the unique circumstances warranted a relief of 10% in the annual fee. Consequently, the court directed a concession of Rs.19,000 from a total fee of Rs.1,89,000 for the 2020-21 year, directing Rs.1,70,000 to be paid, with adjustments if already collected and applicability limited to the petitioners before it. The petition was disposed of accordingly by the two-judge bench.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Information Act, 2005G.O.(RT) NO.789/2021, HEDN, dated 15/6/2021 (RT Education Dept)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Covid-19 induced disruption in the 2020-21 academic year impacted the availability of standard facilities, particularly hospital access, essential for a BAMS curriculum. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Indian School, Jodhpur decision (MANU/SC/0338/2021), they urged a pro rata concession, effectively up to a 25% reduction in fees for the affected year. They highlighted the total fee of Rs. 1,89,000 for 2020-21 and sought relief commensurate with the disruption to clinical training and hospital services. They argued that the college, being a first-line Covid treatment facility for a portion of the year, deprived them of requisite facilities and should adjust the fee accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent College argued that despite disruptions, online instruction was provided and staff salaries were paid in full during the pandemic, implying no real savings in infrastructure costs to pass on as concessions. There was no fixed formula for fee concession in such scenarios, and the college maintained that any concession must recognize the unique context without diluting the institution’s financial viability. It contended that at most a targeted relief would be feasible, but not a uniform formula akin to the SC directive. The college emphasized that the hospital facility was not available to students for the entire period, but asserted that the college’s broader operational obligations persisted, and that the institution had to balance patient care commitments with education. Ultimately, it urged the court to exercise caution and avoid a blanket concession while considering the pandemic’s impact.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Indian School, Jodhpur and Others v. State of Rajasthan and OthersMANU/SC/0338/2021DistinguishedThe petitioners relied on this SC decision for a 25% fee reduction; the High Court, noting the uniqueness of the present facts (hospital facilities and Covid care context), did not apply the fixed 25% rule but instead granted a limited 10% concession, thus distinguishing the SC precedent on the facts.
Judgment in WP(C) NO.21567 OF 2020WP(C) NO.21567 OF 2020Mentioned OnlyExhibit P7 references a prior Kerala High Court judgment; the present judgment does not rely on or apply its ratio, but it is cited as part of the exhibits and background material.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Talwin Joseph and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **FRIDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022/18TH CHAITHRA, 1944** **W.P(C).NO.18510 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 TALWIN JOSEPH AGED 21 YEARS KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, VALAPPU MALIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 511.** - **2 SREERAM S.KAMMATH KRRA-93, KUNNUNGAL LANE, KACHCHAPILLY ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 019.** - **3 AASHIKA P.A. PANCHAIKKAL PARAMBIL, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI - 682 026.** **4 NIVEDHYA P.A. CHANDRA HOMES, PALATHINKAL LANE, VADAKEKOTTA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 30.** - **5 AKHILESH R.S. SIVAKRIPA, NEAR SIVANKOVIL, PUNALUR - 691 305.** - **6 NAYANA M.S. SUJA BHAVAN, VAVANIKONAM, VATTAPPARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 028.** - **7 FEMINA S.WILSON NABHAS, NEAR AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, ERICHALLOOR** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 2 ::** ## **PLAMOOTTUKKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 122.** - **8 ASWANY S.VIJAYAN** **VIJAY NIVAS, PERIYAVEEDU, VLATHANKARA P.O. - 695 134.** **9 ANURADHA SHAJI ANUSHAM, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 019.** - **10 HAFINA HABEEB** **ZAM ZAM, ATHIKATTUKULANGARA P.O., NOORANAD - 690 504.** - **11 AISWARYA V. AISWARYABHAVAN, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA (N) P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 014.** - **12 DEVIKA SIVADAS DEVIKA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 582.** - **13 ANUPAMA B.** **RAMNIVAS (H), KIZHAKKEMAN AKKUNNATH, PATTANAKKAD - 688 531.** - **14 ANGEL P.ANTO** **PULLIKKAN HOUSE, MANALUR, THRISSUR - 680 617.** - **15 KRISHNENDU** **MARAKKATH HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR - 680 509.** - **16 AKSHAYA VATTAPARAMBIL (H), ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR - 680 666.** - **17 RIYA JOSE KURIYAPARAMBIL, KOTTAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR - 680 667** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 3 ::** - **18 HARITHA THOZHUTHUNGAL (H), GOWREESWARA, CHERAI - 683 514.** - **19 ANJU B. THARAYIL (H), GOWREESWARAM CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 514.** - **20 DEVIKA MADHU SUDHAN PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY, BANGALORE - 561 203.** - **21 NITHA NOURIN K. KALODATH (H), PANAMARAM - 670 721.** - **22 JAMSHEENA M. MUTHUVADAN (H), PARAPPUR, KOTTAKKAL - 676 503.** - **23 SINANA T. THEKKEDATH (H), MANHAPETTY, KOORAD (P.O.), MALAPAPURAM - 679 339.** - **24 GOPIKA K.C. KARUKAYIL (H), KUMARAKOM - 686 563.** - **25 ATHUL NADH SREESHYLAM (MLATHADATHIL), VIZHIKKITHODU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM - 686 518.** - **26 BLESSY JOSE CHETTANIYIL, KARIMANOOR, THODUPUZHA 685 581.** - **27 AFNA NASEER ALIYAKUNNEL (H), UDUMBANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685 595.** - **28 GOPIKA SANAL THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI - 685 553.** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 4 ::** - **29 ANNA ELIZABETH MATHEW KOIPURATHU HOUSE, KATTAPPANA - 685 511.** - **30 SHAHANA MOL K.H.** - **KOLLAMPARAMBIL (H), VALARA P.O., TENTH MILE, IDUKKI - 685 561.** - **31 VEENA C.VISWAM** **CHIRAYIL PUTHENPURAYIL (H), KALAMBOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ENANALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 686 673.** - **32 JAIBY VARGHESE MANGATTU MANKUZHA(H), ASAMANNOOR P.O., PUNNAYAM - 683 549.** - **33 AMINA T.A.** **THOTTATHIL KOTTAPPURTH (H), CHALACKAL, MARAMPALLY P.O., ALUVA - 683 105.** - **34 NAYANA M.SURESH MUTHALAPPARAMBHIL, KEEZHILLAM, ERNAKULAM - 683 541.** **35 APARNA SHENOY VALIYAPARAMBU PUTHEN MADOM (H), PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 542.** **BY ADV.SRI.S.MANU BY ADV.SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR** - **BY ADV.SRI.BEA MARY BENNY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1.** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 5 ::** - **2 ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.C.15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** - **3 NANGELIL AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 691, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.** - **4 THE MANAGER NANGELIL AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 691.** - **5 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 596.** - **BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)** - **BY ADV.SMT.CHITRA P. GEORGE BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES** - **BY ADV.SRI.NISHA GEORGE BY SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 6 ::** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The petitioners, 35 in number, are stated to be BAMS Degree students of the Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College, Kothamangalam. They joined the College during the academic year 2018-19. In the writ petition, it is their case that during the academic year 2020-21, there was a disruption in the instructions imparted to them by the College, and hence, they ought to be extended a pro rata concession in the fee demanded from them for the said academic year. The petitioners rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Indian School, Jodhpur and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others – [MANU/SC/0338/2021]** to point out that under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court had directed a School to extend a 25% reduction in the fees to students. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent College, it is stated that although there was a disruption in the **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 7 ::** functioning of the College owing to the outbreak of Covid-19 in March, 2020, the management had taken steps to ensure that instructions were imparted to the students online, and further that the staff and faculty were made available for the students by paying them the entire salary and other allowances due to them even during the pandemic period. It is therefore contended that there was no saving effected in the infrastructure costs incurred by the College the benefit of which could be passed on to the students concerned. 3. We have heard Sri.Manu S., the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Adv.Smt.Chitra P. George for the respondent College. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that in matters such as these, there cannot be any fixed formula on the basis of which concessions can be granted to the students for alleged disruption and lack of facilities made available to them by the College where they are studying. We note however, that in the instant case, the respondent College was a first line Covid treatment facility for a good part of the academic year 2020-21, and consequently, the hospital attached to the College was not available for **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 8 ::** the benefit of the students pursuing the BAMS course in the said College. Taking note of the said unique situation, and finding that there was a deprivation of the hospital facility to the students during the said period, we believe that extending a reduction of 10% of the annual fee charged from the petitioners for the said academic year would not be unreasonable under the circumstances. 5. We are told that the fees paid by the petitioners for the said academic year is in an amount of Rs.1,89,000/-. Deducting 10% of the said fee for the academic year 2020-21, we direct that the petitioners before us be extended a fee concession for the said academic year, to the extent of Rs.19,000/-, and we direct that only an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- be collected as fee from the petitioners for the academic year 2020-21. We make it clear that this direction shall be confined only to the petitioners before us, who have pursued the matter and have produced material to suggest that they had not obtained the benefit of having a hospital facility in connection with their course during the period aforementioned. In the event of the College already having collected the full fee from the petitioners herein for the academic year 2020-21, the concession as aforesaid, shall be extended by way of adjustment towards the fee of the future years. The **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 9 ::** petitioners, who have not paid the fee for the academic year 2020-21, shall do so immediately after availing of the concession directed in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed as above. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** **prp/8/4/22** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 10 ::** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.18510/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/5/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE FIXING THE FEE FOR 2018-19.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO EXT.P2.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE UPDATED GUIDELINES ISSUED ON 9/08/2021 BY HE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PARENTS OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE COLLEGE.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21567 OF 2020 DATED 11/12/2020.** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 15/8/2020.** **Exhibit P9 THE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.789/2021 HEDN DTD. 15/6/21. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DEMANDING FEE FOR 2021-22.** **W.P.(C).NO.18510 OF 2021 :: 11 ::** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A)** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RAFF NO.329AC/2020 DATED 15.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(B)** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING RAFF NO.333AC/2020 DATED 01.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(C)** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(D)** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(E)** **TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DIRECTING REOPENING OF COLLEGES.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**