JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            By this order, we propose to decide the above noted revision petitions involving similar question of law and facts.

2.         The facts of the respective complaints are more or less similar.  For the sake of brevity and convenience, in order to appreciate the question of law and facts involved in these revision petitions, we treat the file of Revision Petition No.4489 of 2013 as a lead file.

3.         Briefly stated facts pertaining to R.P. No. 4489 of 2013 are that respondent Consumer Protection Council Tamil Nadu Trichi & Devender Prasad filed a consumer complaint No.20/2011 in District Forum Thanjavur alleging that for the academic year 2010-2011 son of the complainant got admission in B Tech course of the petitioner / deemed university.  Pursuant to the admission offer, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.62,000/- with the petitioner Institute on 02.07.2010.  Subsequently son of the petitioner received a call for admission counselling from NIIT Arunachal Pradesh.  The complainant, therefore, requested the petitioner to return the original certificates of his son but the petitioner Institute declined to return the original certificates.  Thereafter, son of the complainant no.2 received a call for admission counselling in Bihar as a consequence complainant no.2 withdrew his son from the petitioner Institute and requested for the return of original certificates and the refund of fee already paid.  The petitioner Institute refused to oblige.  Claiming this to be deficiency in service, respondent no.2, complainant, with the aid of complainant no.1 counsel filed the consumer complaint.  The facts of the other revision petitions are more or less similar but for the minute details like dates etc.

4.         The petitioner opposite party despite of service of notice of said consumer complaints remained absent in the proceedings before the District Forum.  Accordingly, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte in all the matters and the District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and affidavit of the complainants allowed the respective complaints.

5.         The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred appeals before the State Commission Tamil Nadu Chennai and the State Commission vide respective impugned orders dated 07.08.2013 concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeals.  This has led to filing of the above noted revision petitions.

6.         Learned Shri M N Krishnamani, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposite party has contended that the orders of the State Commission are not sustainable, firstly, on the ground that those orders are against the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697. It is further contended that as per the admission brochure of the petitioner University, cut off date for refund of fee was 31.07.2010 and it was made clear that no refund shall be made after the cut off date.  It is argued that in all the above noted matters, the request for refund of fee on the ground of the students having got admission in some other institute was made after the expiry of above noted cut off date and, therefore, as per the contract between the parties, there is no justification for grant of refund.

7.         Mr.Pushpapavanam, Authorised Representative of the respondent / complainant on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned orders.

8.         We have considered the rival contentions.  On perusal of record, we do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner.  First contention of the petitioner is that impugned orders are in violation of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 8 of the judgment in the matter of Islamic Academy of Education (supra). Relevant para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced thus:

“It must be mentioned that during arguments it was pointed out to us that some educational institutions are collecting, in advance, the fees for the entire course i.e. for all the years.  It was submitted that this was done because the institute was not sure whether the student would leave the institute midstream.  It was submitted that if the student left the course in midstream then for the remaining years the seat would lie vacant and the institute would suffer. In our view an educational institution can only charge prescribed fees for one semester/year.  If an institution feels that any particular student may leave in midstream then, at the highest, it may require that student to give a bond/bank guarantee that the balance fees for the whole course would be received by the institute even if the student left in midstream.  If any educational institution has collected fees in advance, only the fees of that semester/year can be used by the institution.  The balance fees must be kept invested in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank.  As and when fees fall due for a semester/year only the fees falling due for that semester/year can be withdrawn by the institution.  The rest must continue to remain deposited till such time that they fall due.  At the end of course the interest earned on these deposits must be paid to the student from whom the fees were collected in advance.”

9.         On reading of the above, we find that in this paragraph, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of legality and justification of the educational institutions collecting the fee for entire course in advance on the premise that the institute was not sure whether the student will leave the course in mid stream resulting in the seat lying vacant in the remaining year.  The facts of this case are totally different.  Therefore, the judgment is of no avail to the petitioner.

10.       Coming to the merits of the case.    Petitioner himself has placed on record photocopy of public notice dated 23.04.2007 issued by University Grants Commission which reads as under:

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commissions that Institutions and Universities including Institutions deemed to be universities are admitting students to various programmes of studies long before the actual starting of academic session; collecting full fee from the admitted students; and, retaining their schools/institutions leaving certificate in original.  The Institutions and Universities are also reportedly confiscating the fee paid if a student fails to join by such dates.

2.         The Commission is of view that the Institutions / Universities by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice.  However, it would not be permissible for institutions and Universities to retain the school / institution Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, caste certificate and other documents in original.

3.         The Ministry of Human Resource Development and University Grants Commission have considered the issue and decided that the Institutions and Universities, in the public interest, shall maintain a waiting list of students / candidates.  In the event of a student / student withdrawing before the starting of the course, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat.  The entire fee collected from the student, after a deduction of the processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- (one thousand only) shall be refunded and returned by the Institution / University to the student / candidate withdrawing from the programme.  Should a student leave after joining the course and if the seat consequently falling vacant has been filled by another candidate by the last date of admission, the Institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.

4.         The Universities / Institutions are requested to abide by the instructions issued by the UGC.  The UGC, shall on its own or on receipt of specific complaints from those affected take all such steps as may be necessary to enforce these directions.

5.         Institutions / Universities are also required to convey these instructions to the colleges affiliated to them.” 

11.       On reading of the above, it is clear that by this public notice issued in the year 2007, University Grants Commission with a view to protect the interest of the students seeking admission in various educational programmes had issued instructions to all the institutes and universities including the deemed universities that in the public interest they shall maintain a waiting list of students / candidates and in the event of a student / candidate withdrawing before the start of the course, the waitlisted candidate shall be given admission against the vacant set and the entire fee collected from the student after deduction of processing fee of not more than Rs.1000/- shall be refunded and returned to such student withdrawing from the course.  This notice further directs that if the student  leave after attending the course and the seat consequently falling vacant has been filed by another candidate, the institution must return the fee collected with proportionate deductions of monthly fee and proportionate hostel rent, where applicable.  The public notice further provides that it would not be permissible for institutions and universities to return the School / Institution Leaving Certificate, mark sheet, cast certificate and other documents in original.

12.       On perusal of the order of the foras below, we find that the foras below on the basis of aforesaid instructions issued by University Grants Commission by public notice dated 23.4.2007 have directed the petitioner to return the original certificates to the respective complainants and also to refund 50% of the fee deposited by them besides awarding compensation as also cost of litigation.  We find no infirmity in the said order particularly when there is no evidence to show that the seat vacated by respective wards of complainants / complainant remained unfilled during the academic year.  In absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner has suffered any financial loss because of withdraw of candidature, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  So far as the plea of the petitioner that brochure clearly stipulate that no refund of fee shall be permissible after 30.07.2010 is concerned, it is suffice to note that the petitioner cannot take advantage of conditions mentioned in the brochure which is violative of the instructions issued by UGC.

13.       In view of the discussion above, the petitioner has not been able to show any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order under revision.  Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.