High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-03-31Dismissed

The Chairman, Sneha College of Architecture v. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges (represented by the Member Secretary) and Devadasan G.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 11180 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2023-03-31
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; Ext.P17 order directing refund of the fee is sustained; the admissions closure date as claimed by the college was not proven, and the Supervisory Committee’s action is upheld.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Chairman, Sneha College of Architecture

Respondents

The Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges, represented by the Member Secretary, Trivandrum
Devadasan G.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Tony George Kannanthanam
• Sri. Thomas George

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Mary Benjamin
• Sri. A.T. Anilkumar
• Smt. V. Shylaja
• Sri. Jose Paul Thottam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed by the Chairman of Sneha College of Architecture, challenges Ext.P17 order of the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges directing refund of the tuition fee after the cancellation of the second respondent’s daughter’s admission in 2017. The central issue concerns the date on which admissions were closed for the B.Arch course in 2017. The petitioner contends that admissions were closed on 21.08.2017 and cancellation occurred thereafter, entitling the college to refund the entire course fee; it relies on Government Order Ext.P4 and Council of Architecture norms that set a closing date of 01.09.2017, while Ext.P14 prospectus indicates a closure of 15.08.2017. The Supervisory Committee held that admissions were closed only by 01.09.2017, and ordered a refund of Rs. 2,27,250/-. The court notes the absence of material to prove an earlier closure date and observes inconsistencies among Ext.P4, Ext.P14, and other documents. It reasons that the college failed to establish the alleged earlier closure date and that the Committee correctly ordered refund. The petition is dismissed. The judgment cites Thulaseedharan Nair. D v. Mohandas College of Engineering and Technology to endorse the pre‑closure refund principle and upholds the Committee’s action on the facts. The case clarifies the jurisdiction of the Supervisory Committee and the binding effect of the admissions‑closing dates in the context of fee refunds.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Refund principle for admission closures: if a student discontinues before the last closed date, full refund of fees is due; liability for the entire course fee and liquidated damages arises only if discontination occurs after the last date fixed for closure of admissions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that admissions were closed by the college on 21.08.2017 and cancellation of admission happened thereafter; Ext.P4 (G.O.) shows the last date of admission as 25.07.2017, and the Council of Architecture norms allow 01.09.2017 as the closing date but do not preclude earlier closure by the college. The contention is that cancellation after closure entitles the college to the entire tuition fee. The petitioner asserts that the date of closure claimed by the college has not been proved; Ext.P14 (prospectus) indicates a different closing date; the admission‑cancellation sequence and the jurisdiction of the Supervisory Committee are to be examined, and Ext.P17 should be quashed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there is no material proving the date of closure; Ext.P4 indicates a last date of 25.07.2017; Ext.P14 shows an 15.08.2017 closing date per the college's materials; the college has not proven the actual closing date; the Admission Supervisory Committee had jurisdiction to decide the refund dispute as it concerns admission; the college was heard as per Ext.P17; the order granting refund was proper and justified on the facts.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thulaseedharan Nair. D v. Mohandas College of Engineering and Technology	2019 (2) KHC 643 (DB)	Positive	Cited to endorse the principle that if a student discontinues before the last date fixed for closing admissions, they are entitled to a full refund; liability for the entire fee arises only if discontination occurs after the last date.
WP(C) No. 5425/2018	WP(C) No. 5425/2018	Mentioned Only	Referenced via Exhibit P10 as a judgment of this Court; not discussed as an authority for the current decision.

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 The Chairman, Sneha College of Architecture v. The Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges (represented by the Member Secretary) and Devadasan G. 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 SATHISH NINAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 11180 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** THE CHAIRMAN, SNEHA COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, ATTAYAMPATHY, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., MUTHALAMADA, PALAGHAT- 678507. BY ADVS. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAD, TRIVANDRUM- 695014. 2 DEVADASAN G., ALUVILAYIL HOUSE, PALANKARA P.O., NILAMBUR VIA. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679330. BY ADVS. SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA SRI.JOSE PAUL THOTTAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31[st] day of March, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** The writ petition is filed by the Chairman of a College of Architecture. The challenge is against Ext.P17 order of the first respondent-Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala whereunder the petitioner was directed to refund the fee. 2. The daughter of the second respondent-Miss. Vishnu Priya secured admission in the petitioner-College for B.Arch course in the year 2017. There is dispute between the parties with regard to the date of admission. According to the petitioner, it was on 25.07.2017, whereas according to the second respondent it was on 21.08.2017. However, the same may not be of much relevance on the facts of the case at hand. The second respondent's daughter cancelled her admission on 25.08.2017 and left the College. The second respondent ## **W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** -: 2 :- sought for refund of the fee paid. The Supervisory Committee taking note of the fact that the cancellation of admission was prior to the closure of admissions, ordered refund of ` 2,27,250/-. 3. Heard Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Mary Benjamin, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The contention of the petitioner-College is that, the admissions were closed by the College on 21.08.2017 and the cancellation was thereafter. As per Ext.P4 G.O, cancellation of admission being done after the closure of admissions, the College is entitled to the entire course fee. The finding of the Supervisory Committee that the admissions were closed only on 01.09.2017 is not correct. The Supervisory Committee proceeded as if the directions of the Council of Architecture is binding on the petitioner's College and ## **W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** -: 3 :- that the said Council has prescribed 01.09.2017 as date of closure of admission. It is further contended that, at any rate, the regulation of the Council of Architecture only provided for the last date of closure of admission as 01.09.2017 and it did not prevent the petitioner-College from closing the admissions on an earlier date i.e., on 21.08.2017. In substance the contention is that, the cancellation of admission by the second respondent was subsequent to the closure of admission and hence the College is entitled to the entire tuition fee. 5. This Court _**in Thulaseedharan Nair. D v. Mohandas College of Engineering and Technology [2019 (2) KHC 643 (DB)]**_ held as follows :- _“Therefore, it is evident that in the case of a student, who discontinues the course prior to the last date of closing of admissions, he/she would be entitled for refund of the entire fees remitted. The liability to pay the fee for the entire duration of the course and liquidated damages would arise only if the student discontinues the course after the last date fixed for closure of admissions. …..”_ ## **W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** -: 4 :- The entitlement of the College for the tuition fee for the entire course in case the student discontinues the studies after the last date of closure of admission, is not the dispute. The dispute is with regard to the date of closure of admission by the petitioner College. 6. Straight away it is to be noted that, though the petitioner claims that admissions were closed on 21.08.2017, there is total absence of any material to evidence the same. Ext.P4 is the Government Order relating to Higher Education-Technical-Admission to professional degree courses for the academic year 201718. The said Government Order suggests the last date of admission as 25.07.2017. The respondents contend that the said date was extended. It could only be correct for the reason that even according to the petitioner the date of closure of admission in the petitioner's College was on 21.08.2017. As per the norms of the Council of Architecture, the closing date of admission was 01.09.2017. However, as per Ext.P14 prospectus the date ## **W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** **==> picture [34 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** of closure of admission is 15.08.2017. As noticed supra, according to the petitioner the admissions were closed on 21.08.2017. Though the petitioner claims that the admissions were closed on 21.08.2017, the petitioner has not produced any material in the said regard. Unless the petitioner proves that the cancellation of admission was after the closure of admission by the petitionercollege, the petitioner is bound to refund the fee. There is no evidence to show the date of closure of admission by the petitioner-College. It is for the College to prove the date of closure of admission and that the second respondent cancelled admission thereafter. The petitioner has failed in the said endeavour. The Admission Supervisory Committee has, on the facts, rightly ordered refund of the fee paid. 7. Though the petitioner has a contention that the Admission Supervisory Committee lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim for refund of fee, I am unable to agree with the same. The claim for refund of the fee **W.P.(C) No.11180 of 2019** **==> picture [34 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** paid on cancellation of admission prior to its closure is definitely a matter in relation to the admission and hence it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee. I do not think that it needs any further deliberation. 8. Though the petitioner has a case that the petitioner was not heard by the Committee before passing Ext.P17 order, the said contention cannot be sustained in the light of the statement in page 3 of Ext.P17 order that the petitioner-College was represented by its Campus Supervisor and that he was heard. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11180/2019** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.0.7.2017| |---|---| ||FOR RS.10,000/-| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.07.2017| ||FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S DAUGHTER.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07.06.2017| ||EXECUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2017 OF| ||THE HIGHER EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.08.2017 TO| ||THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.08.2017 FOR| ||RS.1,17,2502/-| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.08.2017 FOR| ||RS.10,000/-| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.08.2017| ||FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.08.2017| ||FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE DATED| ||25.08.2017 FROM THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.08.2017 FOR| ||RS.1,50,000/-| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2018 IN| ||WP(C)NO.5425/2018 OF THIS HON'COURT.| |EXHIBIT P11|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2018| ||FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P12|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.02.2019| ||TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P13|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2017 OF| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| APPENDIX- **WP(C) 11180/2019** -2- |EXHIBIT P14|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FEE| |---|---| ||STRUCTURE.| |EXHIBIT P14|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF CLOSING| ||DATE.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LIST AS ON| ||20.07.2017.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION LIST.| |EXHIBIT P15|TRUE COPY OF THE NON-JOINING LIST 29.07.2017.| |EXHIBIT P16|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED| ||15.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| |EXHIBIT P17|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| -----