WP(C).Nos. 23433 of 2015 and 28725 of 2015, Common Judgment in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam: Principal, K.V.M. College of Engineering and Information Technology, Cherthala v. Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges of Kerala; and Binoj Babu and Usha Babu v. State of Kerala and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- V. G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2019-08-02
- Court Decision / Holding
- W.P.(C) Nos. 23433/2015 and 28725/2015 disposed of. The Court held that the student’s liability could not be sustained due to the SC exemption under the KEAM prospectus, and noted that recovery actions should have been pursued within three years; considering the elapsed period, there is no scope for recovery from the student or the Government. The Court directed the college to hand over the transfer certificates and certificates in question, vacating the impugned order’s reasoning on limitation, and reserved the question of liability for future appropriate cases.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of; certificates to be handed over; limitation bars recovery against the student or Government; liability left open for future cases.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- THE PRINCIPAL, K.V.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CHERTHALA
- BINOJ BABU
- USHA BABU
Respondents
- ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES OF KERALA
- THE STATE OF KERALA
- THE CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
- THE KVM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
- • SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
- • SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
- • SRI.MANU GOVIND
- • SRI.S.SABARINADH
Counsels for Respondents
- • GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR
- • SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
Case Synopsis & Summary
The judgment deals with challenges to the Order of the Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committee (the Committee) concerning tuition fees and liquidated damages for a student who discontinued a B.Tech course after the first year, while the student belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) eligible for fee exemption under the KEAM prospectus. The College (petitioner in WP(C) No. 23433) argued for recovery or damages, and the student/petitioners in WP(C) No. 28725 contended that SC status exempts him from fees and that non-return of certificates by the College arose from disputes over refunds. The Committee concluded that SC students are exempt from fees, and considered liquidated damages for non-continuation when applicable. The Court noted that the student had attended up to 10 January 2015 (read as 10 January 2014) and, due to SC status and KEAM provisions, was not liable for such payments. It also considered that recovery actions, if any, should have been pursued within three years, and that on account of the elapsed period, no recovery against the student or Government could be sustained. The Court directed the College to hand over the certificates and disposed of the petitions, leaving the broader question of liability open for future cases.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the Scheduled Caste student is exempt from fees under the KEAM prospectus and is not liable to pay tuition fees or liquidated damages for discontinuing the course. They contended that even if the Committee’s order was to be set aside, there is no viable route for recovery from the student or the Government, and that the College should not be allowed to coerce recovery or retain the student’s certificates. They urged for exoneration from liability and for the timely return of original certificates, noting that the student had sought admission elsewhere and that the college’s and Government’s remedies were constrained by limitation.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the College, as a self-financing institution, is prejudiced by a student’s discontinuation and is entitled to liquidated damages under the KEAM prospectus after the first academic year. They argued that the Government must ultimately bear the cost of any such liability, and relied on a Division Bench decision in Principal, Sree Narayana Mangalam Institute of Management and Technology, Maliankara v. Fee Regulatory Committee and Ors. (2016) to illustrate similar circumstances where liquidated damages were applicable. They asserted the need to protect the college’s finances and legal rights to recover funds; and they emphasized that even if the petitioners were exempt, the proper channels for recovery should be pursued, and that limitation could bar such recovery.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal, Sree Narayana Mangalam Institute of Management and Technology, Maliankara v. Fee Regulatory Committee and Ors. | 2016 (5) KHC 462 | Mentioned Only | Cited by counsel as a precedent in similar circumstances; the common judgment does not apply the ruling to mandate liability, instead it determines limitation and certificate handover, leaving liability open for future cases. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 WP(C).Nos. 23433 of 2015 and 28725 of 2015, Common Judgment in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam: Principal, K.V.M. College of Engineering and Information Technology, Cherthala v. Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges of Kerala; and Binoj Babu and Usha Babu 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.