AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
Writ petition is filed by the Principal of a Private Self Financing Medical College - Kannur Medical College. The College was established in the year 2006. For the year 2016-17, the sanctioned intake for the MBBS course conducted by the College was 150. Consequent on various illegalities on the part of the College in the process of admission, the admissions were cancelled.
The Apex Court as per order dated 29.08.2018 in SLP No.23225/2018 (Ext.P1) directed the College to return double the amount received from each of the students, other than the fee. The relevant direction in the order reads thus:-
“The college shall return the double of the amount than the fees at deposited by each one of 150 students with college, by 4th September, 2018.
It is submitted that the amount shall be remitted in the bank account of each of the students. Let compliance report including bank statements, bank account numbers with names of students be filed not only in this Court but also to the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC). The ASC shall ascertain and submit the report whether amount has been refunded, as ordered, to the students and bank accounts belong to them.”
There arose some disputes with regard to the quantum of the amount payable. The Apex Court as per order dated 04.10.2018 (Ext.P2) held that, since the quantum of amount collected and refunded from each of the students is a disputed question of fact, the Admission Supervisory Committee is to conduct an enquiry in the said regard. The relevant direction reads thus:-
“It is seriously disputed fact in the instance case that how much amount had been collected from each of the students and what has been refunded as per the order passed by this Court is not the appropriate sum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
…………...With respect to refund, let enquiry be made by the ASC and let appropriate order be passed in this regard.”
Pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the Admission Supervisory Committee issued notice to the students. The College raised a contention that the claims of various students were settled by them pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, and that, notices issued ought not be issued to the said students. The Apex Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 18.02.2021 in Civil Appeal No.596/2021 and connected cases noticed that there were contentions that the alleged settlement was vitiated for lack of free consent and directed that notices shall be issued to students to whom amounts have not been paid in terms of the directions of the Apex Court.
Pursuant thereto the Admission Supervisory Committee passed Ext.P13 order dated 01.12.2021 directing the College to pay an amount of ` 11,65,000/-to the first respondent herein who is the father of one of the students – Ms.Pooja. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel on either side.
The contention of the petitioner is that, the claim of the first respondent was fully and finally settled by the College as early as in October 2017. The settlement is evidenced by Ext.P6 affidavit and Ext.P7 petition of the first respondent, and also Ext.P8 order of the Admission Supervisory Committee. In the light of the settlement, the Committee could not have further re-opened the case of the first respondent, it is urged.
The alleged settlement of the claims of the first respondent, as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8, are in October 2017. It is thereafter, on 29.08.2018, that the Apex Court passed Ext.P1 order directing return of double the amount collected, other than the fee, to each one of 150 students. Before the Apex Court, either at the time of Exts.P1 or P2 orders, the petitioner did not have a case that the claim of the first respondent herein was already settled and hence such amounts as directed are not liable to be paid to him. Noticeably, the Apex Court had directed return of double the amount to each one of the 150 students without any exception. Unless the petitioner has a case that double the amount collected from the first respondent, as directed in Ext.P1 order by the Apex Court, has already been returned, the claim for the same by the first respondent cannot be challenged by the petitioner.
It is also to be noticed that, in Ext.P3 judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra, it was made clear that, the intent while passing Exts.P1 and P2 orders was to ensure the payment as directe d in Ext.P1 to each of the students. It would be appropriate to refer to relevant portions in paragraph 24 of Ext.P3 judgment which reads thus:-
“We have already referred to the two orders passed by this Court on 29th August, 2018 and 4th October, 2018 which had inter alia directed that double the fee paid by the guardians/students would be refunded by KMC through electronic mode. Obviously, the intent being that the payment must be made. In order to ensure that payment is actually made, specific directions were issued that the amount would be remitted to the bank account of each student. Further, a compliance report including bank statement, bank account numbers with the names of the students was to be filed before this Court and also the ASC. The ASC was thereupon to ascertain and submit the report to this Court as to refund of the amounts to the students in their bank accounts. In order to ensure prompt payment and also by way of penalty, KMC was directed to not admit even a single student for the year 2019-20 other than the students allotted by the CEE in their counselling to be held on 4th and 5th of September 2018.”
Noticeably, the petitioner does not have a claim that the 1st respondent was paid the entire amount as ordered by the Apex Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the claim of the first respondent was settled even prior to the passing of Ext.P1 order. In the light of the foregoing discussions, such a contention cannot be entertained.
It is incidentally noticed that, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Apex Court, the Admission Supervisory Committee had considered the claim of the first respondent and, as per Ext.P10 noted that the first respondent was re-paid the entire amounts paid by him and that the first respondent has filed a separate petition claiming compensation. Such claim made after Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the Apex Court is in tune with the directions in the orders.
The petitioner is bound to pay to the first respondent double the amount than the fee, as directed in Ext.P1 order by the Apex Court. The present order of the Admission Supervisory Committee (Ext.P13), is in consonance with the directions of the Apex Court.
There is no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.