KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Petition is filed by a Trust which runs various educational institutions. Alleging that the respondents 1 to 5 did not remit the course fees, special fees, hostel fees etc. of five re-allocated students, which they were obliged under Exhibits P1 and P3, this Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) For the year 2016-2017, Government of India had granted letter of permission to Kerala Medical College, Palakkad, the additional 9th respondent herein, for starting MBBS course with an intake of 150 students. By Ext.P1 Government Order, the fee payable by the students was fixed as per which the fee payable by the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and students from the other eligible community (OEC) was fixed at Rs. 2,50,000/- per year and Government had taken up the responsibility to remit the above amount to the College where those students are studying. After the admission of the above students as aforesaid, noticing shortcomings about the 9th respondent College, on recommendation of the Medical Council of India, Government of India decided to withdraw the letter of permission granted to the said college making it impossible for the students to continue their studies. The students then filed Writ Petitions before this Court and pursuant to the directions passed, the respondents decided to reallocate the students who were studying in the 9th respondent College to nine other self financing colleges in the State and accordingly, Ext. P3 minutes along with list of students were prepared and 26 students were reallocated to the petitioner's college of which 4 students belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and one student to the OEC. As stated above, their fee were to be remitted by respondents 1 to 5 to the petitioner College as evident from Ext.P1 and P3.

(3.) Immediately on re-allocation of the students, the petitioner sent Ext. P4 request to the 5th respondent along with all requisite documents for remitting the payment on behalf of the 5 students mentioned above. Since no action was taken on Ext. P4, the petitioner again send Exts. P7 and P8 requests to the 3rd and 4th respondents requesting for remitting the fees of those students in tune with Ext. P1 and P3 orders. By Ext. P9 communication, the 5th respondent intimated the College that a concurrence had to be obtained from the 6th respondent in the matter of fixing the fee of the students, and thus, the request of the petitioner College to remit the fee was not acceded. It was in the wake of issuance of Ext. P9, the Writ Petition was filed for a declaration that the statement incorporated in Ext.P9 communication to the effect that respondent 3 to 5 need concurrence from the 6th respondent for fixing the course fee of the reallocated scheduled castes and other eligible community students studying in the petitioner's college is contrary to the terms and conditions fixed in Ext. P1 Government order and also for a direction to R1 to 5 for remitting the fee within a time frame.