1 A K S S Prasad v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in not refund the total Tuition Fees of the petitioners after their cancel the admission, violating the guidelines issued by the respondent No. 2 and 3 is arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently this Honorable court :l".:-;irlx:=:E t / 4+ e may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to refutn I the remaining tuition fees to the petitioners by following the guidelines of respondent No. 2 and 3 and to consider the representation dated 271912021 and in thr.r nterest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th,: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High (-;(.,urt may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to refund the remaining tuitior r fees to the petitioners by following the guidelines of respondent No. 2 and 3, t,ending disposal of the Writ petition t $ lA NO: 2 OF 2021 * Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in trr,r circumstances stated in the aff idavit filed in support of the petition, the High C;c,urt may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to consider the petitionerr: representation dated 271912021, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR SERVICES-l Counsel for the Respondent No.2: DEPUTY SOLICITOR (;,ENERIAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.MEHBOOB ALl, SC FOR AICTE t s Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT C.VANI REDDY, SC FOR TGSCHE The Court made the following: ORDER s + t s EFry;i.i '/ , '. I l l I i i t I HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No.25682 0F 202L ORDER: Heard Sri D.Srinivas, learned standang counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent No'3 and Smt. C.Vani Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the resPondent No.4. titioners aDDroac hed the Court seekrno Dra Ver e

2. The as underl "...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No' 4 in not refund the total Tuition Fees of the petitioners after their cancel the admission, violating the guidelines issued by the respondent No.2 and 3 is arbitrary, illegal, violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently this Honorable court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to refund the remaining tuition fees to the petitioners by following the guidelines of respondent ! M\.-.':::#-1 _. ,.-.-.-, I 2 i \.:.. \ SN, J No. 2 and 3 and to consider the repr:t,;entation 27/9/2021 and in the interest of justice ar)d pass... Th ca eof h e ti I efa a VE rm ents madei n he affid avitfi ledbv t:he e iti n rtn u of the Wr t e iti nis s The sons EAMCET-2020 conducted by the of the petitioners U nder:- had secur.td the ranks in respondent ,Jo.4 in the year 2020 and the petitioners had paid the entire :.tition tees at the time of admission of petitioners, children t: the respondent No.4, but however cancelled the admission befc re 30.11. 2020 in view of the fact that petitioners secured admjssion into other colleges for the course of B.E/B.Tech Course:; the petitioners however obtained oniy half of the amounts of the tuition fees instead of Full total amounts, though the 4th resp()ndent is bound to refund the entire amount, but in view of tt.r Covid_19, the same had not been done by the 4th responder)t. Though, the petitioners made several rep resentations, dated 22.02.2021, 03.04.202t, 04.04.202I and 27.09.2021 addres;sed to the 4rh respondent, the 4rh respondent had not consirlered the said representations even as on date. Aggrieved by th( said action of the respondent, the present Writ petition is filed. B-ry' :::r'' _) SN, J { i 4, PERUSED THE RECORD. A. The relevant portion of proceedinqs F.No.AICTE/ABlAcadem c Calendar/2O2(J-21. dated

18.11.2O2O of the Member Secreta tv, All India Council For Technic al Education is extracted hereunder:-

4. All AICTE approved Institutions/Universities are directed that full refund of fees be made on account ot cancellation of ad m issions/m ig ration of students except PGDM/PGCIVI up to 30th November, 2O2O for this very session as a special case. Therefore, on cancellation/withd rawa I of admission of technical courses (except PGDM/PGCM) up to 3Oth November,2020, the entire fee collected from a student be refunded in full after deduction of not more than Rs. 1,000/- as processing fee. DISCUSSION AND N o

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the proceedings, dated

18.11.2020 issued by the 3'd respondent, contends that as per the said proceedings of the 3'd respondent (referred to and extracted above), the petitioners have to obtain full amount as refund in the event of cancellation of admission by the petitioners' children before 30.11.2020, but however, the petitioners' children received only half of 4 \\I amount towards refund of fees instead of full amounts and further, the petitioners made several r'epresentation to the 4th respondent, dated 22.(J2.2021, O3'O4'2O21, O4.O4.2O2L and 27,O9.2021, but however no response had been received from the 4th respondent even irs on date'

5. Learned sta nd inq counsel a DOea rinq ort behalf of the the resoonrlents mav be on dent No.3 submits that d irectedtoco nsider th oetition rs re pr sentati on s,

22.O2.202t,

03.o4.202t,

04.04.202L

27.O 9.202L, ln accordance to law, within a re asonable period. 7 Lea rned counsel AD D earino on behalf of the ubnrission made b ioners does not dis oute the said s the Iearned stan din counsel a ooea rl n o rr behalf of the respondent No.3. 8 Takin lnto co nsi derati on:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' The submissions made by the lr::arned counsel b) appearang on behalf of the petitione rr; and learned ) SN, J standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. c) The contents of Proceedings F.No.AICTE,/AB/Academic Calendar/2O2O-2L, dated 18.11.2020 of the Member Secretary, All India Council For Technical Education (referred to and extracted above) The representation of the petitioners dated d) 22.02.2027-, 03.O4.2021, O4.O4.2O2t and 27.O9.2021 having not been considered by the 4th respondent even as on date. etitio nsider rieva nce of h The Writ Petition is disoosed of directin o the ndents t e as put-forth bv the petitioners reDrese ntations, dated o4.o4.2021 and 27.O9 .2O2L addressed to the 4th resDondent herein Dertaininqtoth refund of entire fee paid bv the D titioners towards ad mission fee for

22.O2.202L, titioners' .o4.202L, VI oetitioners'c hildren, as oer the quidelines issued bv the 3rd resoonde t. dated LA.Lt.202 o referred ( extra cted above), in accordance to law, Dass 6 \':! \ S\. J aDDroDrt ate reasoned order, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receiot of coov of tlre or r and dulv comm u n icate the decision on the subiec l: issue to the oetitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. luliscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinr, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// -SD/.C. DEEPIKA ANT REGISTRAR A:iSIS I ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education I -"partment' Secretariat' Telangana. State of Telangana.

2. The Secretary. University Grants Commission, Bhall'rr Shah Zafar Marg' New Delhi

3. The All lndia council for Technical Education, (A st,,trrtory body of the Govt. of - f nOla) Ir4inistry of Human Resource Development, (;( )l Nelson [t/landela Marg, Vasant Kun1, New Delhi - 'l 10067.

4. The Convenor, T.S. Eamcet Office, Sanketika Vrd, a Bhavan lVlasab Tank' Hyderabad Telangana - 500 028

5. One CC to SRI D.SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC tO SRI I\4,MEHBOOB ALI, SC FOR AICTE i(.)PUC] 7. One CC to SMT C VANI REDDY, SC FOR TGSCHI- fOPUCI B. One CC to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF Il{DlA High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 9'TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES-I,HighCourtfo-heStateofTe|anganaat Hyderabad [OUT] . 10.Two CD Copies 1-'- BSR BS ls. To, 6 J 6 # & t * $ # * !+ e + ;* HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.26682 ot 2021 (f c_) ,_ ',y l tlr S14 r I1 lri M ((\ ) (.) * Dr :: :-,,, 1,- y 1','{i 9 ;:;' ;:: -, tl DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION. WITHOUT COSTS /s 1,.< + ,/g /<J