SOJA PANICKER Vs. KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dtd. 15/9/2017 passed by Admission Overseeing Committee. The petitioner in addition seeks a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to refund a sum of Rs..13,80,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as well as compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs for loss of academic prospects. The petitioner also seeks a direction to return the transfer certificate and migration certificate of the petitioner so that the petitioner can take admission in another institution.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that admittedly, the petitioner participated in the COMED-K test. However, it appears that by a communication dtd. 19/6/2014 she was granted admission in BDS course (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) in the institution run by respondent Nos.5. The petitioner took admission in the institution run by respondent No.5-Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner between the period from 24/3/2015 to 16/9/2014 has paid a sum of Rs.13,80,000.00, which includes the amount towards the tuition fee as well as hostel expenses. It is the case of the petitioner that even though full fee has been recovered from the petitioner, which was payable for academic Session 2014-15, yet the complainant was not permitted to appear in the examination of first year BDS course. It is further case of the petitioner that she could not appear for the examination conducted by the University on account of misrepresentation of respondent Nos.4 and 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking the reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in the COMED-K examination. However, she was admitted to the BDS course run by respondent No.5-Society. It is further submitted that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.13,80,000.00 to respondent Nos.4 and 5 for the academic year 2014-15, however, the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the examination. Therefore, respondent Nos.4 and 5 should be directed to refund the amount, which is payable to the petitioner . It is also submitted that the Admission Overseeing Committee has directed registration of a criminal case against respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is also urged that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in 'COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. GCRG MEMORIAL TRUST AND OTHERS', AIR 2017 SC 5838.