VIVEK PRATAP SINGH Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by present petition seeks refund of fees deposited by him amounting to Rs. 30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit. The petitioner also seeks quashing of communication dated 7th November, 2006 by which the request of the petitioner for refund of fees was disallowed. The petitioner has also sought payment of Rs. 5. 00 lakh towards damages caused to the petitioner and his family members.

(2.) BRIEF facts to comprehend the dispute between the parties are that the petitioner had applied for admission in MBBS Course under the handicap category for the academic year 2006-2007. The petitioner contended that he was called for counseling.

(3.) RELYING on the Bulletin of Information for Admission to the MBBS course, it is contended that after admission during first counseling, if a student had applied for withdrawal of admission on or before 12th July, 2005, his 50% of the fee was liable to be refunded, however, if any candidate was found unfit in the medical examination, such a candidate was entitled for refund of his entire fees. According to the petitioner, the first counseling was on 3rd August, 2006. The petitioner, therefore, got the demand draft of Rs. 30,000/- made which was payable at State Bank of India, Service Branch, New Delhi, in favour of principal MS V. M. M. C. and S. J. Hospital, Delhi which was deposited at the time of counseling. At the time of admission the petitioner had submitted certificates from the appropriate authority regarding his disability indicating the extent of his disability. The certificate which was given by the petitioner was issued by Government of India and had shown his disability to be 50% to 60%. After the admission was given to the petitioner, a Medical Board was constituted at the instance of the college and the Medical Board by communication dated 8th August, 2006 opined that the petitioner does not qualify for admission under physically handicapped quota as his disability was assessed to be below 3% and therefore the admission of the petitioner was cancelled.