The High Court of Madras tn K.Palanisamy v. Correspon den t, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others of Madurai Bench WP

COUNSEI fOr thE PCtitiONEr: SRI M.NAVNEETH CHOWDARY IPARTY-IN.PERSON] Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGp FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counset for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI p.BHANU Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M.SRINIVAS REDDY, SG FOR OU The Court made the following: ORDER 'RAKASH, SC FOR KU HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P TI ION No 29 F o 4 OR D ER: Heard Pa rtY-i n- Perso n' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education' appearlng on P.Bhanu Prakash, behalf of resPondent No'1 and Sri on behalf of the learned standing counsel appearing respondent Nos'2 to 4' The Dartv-ln-pers on ap Dro ach ed thi s Courts eeklnq 2 the praver as u nd er: ".....to pass an Order or Orders Directions or a Writ or more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned actions of Respondent Nos'2 and 4 in not considering Representation Dt 14'Og'2024 as illegal and consequently direct Respondent Nos' l and 2 to considerandpaSsadeclsiononRepresentation Dt 14.0g.2024 or in the alternative declare the instructions of Respondent No' 4 to get No Dues from Respondent No. 3 despite the petitioner being a Non- boarder as illegal and Pass."" T o t ron r n n f aver entsm de in the ttid su DDO rt of the Dre sentWrit Petiti onl a n r avit fil edbv th epetition er tn 2 SN. J The F,etitioner pursued the B.A. LL.B (Setf_Finance) Course at the University College of Law, Kakatiya University, Warangal (Subedari), durinq the 20Ig- 2024 batch. The petitioner paid all dues and successfully completed the course. The petitioner was neither a hostel boarder nor a scholarship holder at the College of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and had never obtained a mess card at any poin: during the study period. it is further the case of the petitioner that after payment of the entire tuition tee, Respondent No. 3 issued the hall ticket for the 10th cemester Examinations held in August 2024 and subsequenU,T published the results. Following the instructions of Respondent No. 3, the petitioner obtained the necessary attestations on the No_Due Certificate from the Library, Accounts, ard NSS Sections. Upon informing the Hon,ble Vice_ Chancellor regarding the delay, the office staff of Respondent No. 3 endorsed that the petitioner was a non-boarder, affixed the seal of the Director of Hostels, and directed the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 3 for signature. However, Respondent No' 3 wirfu'y and i'ega,y refused to sign the No-Due Certificate on the ground that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Respondent No.3 before the Hon,ble Vice_Cha ncellor. : l I w l 3 SN. J Consequently, the Respondents withheld the Transfer Certificate (T.C.) of the Petitioner' it is further the case of the petitioner that Respondent No' 4 also refused to issue the Transfer Certificate on the pretext that the No-Due Certiticate signed bY Respondent No' 3 had not been submitted. and coerced the Petitioner into giving an undertaking dated 17.09. 2024 to that effect The Petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice dated lg'Og'2024 through RPAD (Consignment Nos. RN130B526O5IN and RN130852614IN)' and called upon the Transfer Certificate within seven (7) respondents to issue the no action had been taken bY the working daYs, however' respondnets. Aggrieved by the arbitrary, illegal, and vindictive actions of the Respondents' the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court' E U E TH R c R 4 This Court decided a similar issue vide its judgment' dated O8.10 .2025, passed in W'P'No'25952 of 2O25' This Court opines that the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner cannot be withheld by the 4th respondent under any pretext. ,+ SN, J

5. The High Court of Madras tn K.Palanisamy Vs. Correspon den t, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others of Madurai Bench WP (MD) 20726 of 2O19 decided on tt.LO.2O19 reported in MANU/TN /653A/2OLg, held that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues. IN 6 In the IU dq me nt ft eHi h Ben ch inS u hu ama chi Ed c A n n tver it hCo rtofM ad ras, Mad urai Th Di e oro T ch n ot er ln W D No.1 4 394 of 20L2 decid ed on 18.1 2.2 ANU TN 2012 6 ob erve a und r 012 repo rted "l woulJ not venture lo cet whethe- the College is enii e or not. The main grievance certificates of her daughter. into that co n trove d to collect the ba of the peUtioner rsy, namely, lance of fees is about the 7 u m n of e o n o ton s tr c u of elhi i ur on fE u Or in WP 65 f 201 CM PL.3 81 o1 t d 1 1.O 7.2 o19 itw she ld as UN der: - ) SN, J "8. There are meth ods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the schoo Ev n the oa rents of t e n o e ofa No such suit b dent ichool for the recoverY s has bee n instltuted bY ResPon of outstanding fees Re SDon entN .2u DO n d n e n it s In iew o eSc 9 n t wlth hel b the reso onde f thesef acts. th lLe o c ou rti of the ool nion sc n o 8 In .Mu hu a a ch vs. T ED re r fTe hni E u A na 20 2 a ed 18. 1-2.2 L2 M e c rl a ud en t erl hi Dro e h tn w .P.TM 4 94 M dr s Hi hc e ifi h td e t t f Colleqe ca nn ot detainthe said a o e a t n t e e Eve f ion o t e al the m th od bv e o t e e ifi hth cla im canbee e t e of the t a n r ifi srs o nforced. There ls in R.PradeeP Rai v' 9. The Madras High Court of Technical Education Commissioner, the Directorate reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad'9385' and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teia vs' The State of Telangana in W.P.No.293 O of 2(t22, dated 24'O6 '2O22 and D'Vaishnavi vs.stateofTelangana'representedbyitsPrinicipal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare' Hydeabad in 6 SN. .I W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated High Court of Andhra pradesh Pradesh private Unaided Schoots v. The State of Andhra pradesh dated 27.lO.ZO2L directed authorities to return the certificates and the college to claim fee similar circumstances.

24.O1.2O2O and also the at Amaravati in Andrha Management Association in W.p.No.96O6 of 2021, the coltege concerned granted liberty to by availing legal remedies

23.o4.2007, tn Darti cular,

10. UGC o uideline a a ra hN 2 a sa l-he Commission i nd er: the view that '2. s of i nstitu tion s/U n iversities by way of reta in ing the certificate in original, force retentio n of adm itted studen ts which limits the opporttr nilies for the ca ndidates from exercisi ng other options of .lornrng other in stitu tions of their choice. Ho we ve r, it would not be perrnissible for institutions and Univers ities to retain the Sch ol/Institution ficate mar certificate andoth rdoc mentst or tqrnal cas e eavtnqc L DISCU ssION ANDC o NC LU SI ON:

11. This Court opines that the 4th respondent cannot withhold the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner under any pretext. There is no ien on the certificate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of children to get the Transfer certificates from one institute to join another institute cannot be denied by the l SN, J concerned a uthorities merelY because a no-due certificate had notbeenSUbmitledbythepetitioneroronthegroundthatthe tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from petitioner towards fee, the proper course available to the respondents ls to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the 4th respondent to make the petitioner pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on the part of the 4th respondent in withholding the Transfer Certificates of the petitioner without any rhyme or reason ' L2. This Court opines that colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return any document in the form of certificates of degree' diploma or any other award or other document deposited with it by students for the PurPose of seeklng admission in such into consideration the view of institution. Therefore d uly taking the various High Courts on the subject issue in various ludgments, referred to and extracted above' and the principle taid down thereunder, this court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition '

13. a n int nsl er lon : ( { 8 SN. J (a) The aforesaid facts and clrcumstances of the case, pertaining (b) The observations on the subject issue to withholding of original certificates of the student, by the Authorities concerned in the Judgments of the various Courts and the principle thereu nder( referred to and extracted above), laid down (c) The UGC guidetines, dated 23.O4 .2OO7, The Writ P ti io res ond n N s.2 a d4 r Certif ca h e iti ra e ll wed a for. Th dire t d ol s e he Tra nsf n r d t ki r n onsi er ti n h o s rv r ferre d o n extra ( 01 weekfrom the a HowEV d above, wr hin De riod ofo e ofr ec aD ofa co v of his order. or era c st. The miscellaneous applications, iF any pending, shall sland th re sh il t r he Va rio s u me nt t clos ed. //TRUE COPY' To, 1 2 If,q Princip_at Secretary, Higher Education Hyderabad. Stater ol Telan.qana. The Registrar, Kzrkatiya University At Warangal. \ SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIffi-oFFIcER Department, Secretariat, w,'''

3. The Director of Hostels, Kakatiya University At Warangal- 4. The Principal, University College of [-aw' Kakatiya University' Warangal At Subedari.

5. The Principal, University College of Law' Osmania University' Hyderabad' 6. One CC to SRI IM,NAVNEETH CHOWDARY TPARTY-IN-PERSONI T One CC to SRI P BHANU PRAKASH' SC FOR KU IOPUC] B. One CC to SRI N/.SRINIVAS REDDY' SC FOR OU IOPUC] g.TwoCCstoGPFoRH|GHEREDUCATION,HighCourtfortheStateof - Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] i

10. Two CD CoPies BSR CCT DAY o HIGH COURT DATED: 1Tt10\ZO2S 1 ORDER WP.No.29513 of 2024 -t JE t- I ( o -!. I * 1t0cT2 025 * P/,JCflI ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS LDl"