1. Gande Nithin Kumar v. violation of Article 14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1, be pleased to direct the Respondent No, 5 to release forthwith the Petitioners itcademic certificates and other related doc uments including the SSC, lnter, TRANS:ER CERTIFICATE, BONAFIDE and Study Certificates to enable the Petition:r to pursue higher studies, mostly imporlant for the LLM counselling and phase - ll web options, seat allotment on 05.11.2025 and certificate verification for the s,ludents who get the seat in a particular colleges is last date on 07.11.2025, S'IATE BAR COUNCIL ENROLLMENT, loss; of year to the students and for employment or other competitive examinalion purposes. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.MALLAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADf\4INISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2&3 : ASST.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION counsel for the Respondent No.4'![,StTu=oDl sRlNlVr\S REDDY, The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.33327 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Mallaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. I

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.5 in withholding the petilioners' oraginal certificates as illegal, arbitrary and u n constitutiona I and violation of the principles of natural justice, and restrain the institution/colleges from withholding original certificates due to outstanding amounts from the government or any including unpaid fees and regulations mentioned under Rule 2(FX6) and Rule 4(C) issued by the U.G.C. notification vide file No.74-4/2012(CPP- 1) in October 2018 and violations issued by Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 05-08-2024 and violation of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct Respondents to issue all the original certificates and documents (SSC, INTERMEDIATE, LLB CERTIFICATES, TC and BONAFIDE) which are holding with Respondent No.5 and pass... ". 2 3 f n in brief ;rs SN- J \!p 33127 101,5 averments m:rde bv the t ne rs in th e aJ {'id a v t filed bv the oetitiolrers in suooort of the Dresent wr,'i Detition is as under: i) The Petitioners had studied in Respondent No. 5 College- i.e., Mahatma Gandhi Law College, NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad pur:;uing different five-year Integrated Law Courses (BBA LLB, B.Ccm LLB, and B.A LLB) under the Government Fee Reimbursement. Scheme. ii) Upon cornpletion of courses, the petitioners approached the college for collection of original certificates including SSC, Intermediate, and LLB marks memos, Transfer Certificate, and Bona fide Certif icate. However, the authorities of Respondent No. 5 college refused to release the certificates on the ground that the Government of Telangana had not yet released the pending fee reimbursernent amounts. iii) Despite repeated visits and requests, the college management failed to release the certificates and stated that unless the Petitioners paid the said amount, their documents would not be issued. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. I -) SN, J \,!p 13327 _202s 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners I submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 27.10.2025 passed in W.P. No.32404 of 2025 and the order of this Court, dated 08.10.2025 passed in W.P.No.25952 of 2025.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It is soecificallv averred at oara No.7 of the affidavit 6. filed bv the oetitioner in suooort of the oresent writ petition, as under "7. I submit that the filing of this writ petition on the basis of LLM Phase-II web options, edit of web options, allotment of the seat to the students and reported at concerned colleges for verification of original certificates along with tuition fee payment receipt from 31.10,2025 to 07.11.2025, the last date of verification of oriqinal certifi cates in the allotted colleqes is 07 .LL.2025".

7. PERUSED THE RECORD 4 \\. .l t\r, ll i27 :r,15 (A) Tbe letter vide Lr.No.O508/TGCHE/ Refund of Oriqinals/2024, dated O5.O8.2O24 issued bv the Telanoanii Council of Hiqher Education,.- Hvderabad addressed to the Reoistrars of OU, KU, iU, MGU, sU. PU, JNTU, JNAFAU & TMVV is extracted hereunder: "Sir, Sub:- TGCHE Withholding of Original Ceftificates of the Students Instructions to the U n iversities/Colleges- Regarding. Ref :- This office Lr. No. TGCHE/Fee Reimbursement /2024, dt.23.O2.2024 U/hi e referring to the subject and referenr. r: cited that in continu.3tir)n of earlier letter. it has come to the notice of the Government that certain orivate colleoes are withholdinq the oriqirral certificates of students on the pretext of not lgsqivilg fee reimbursement from the Goven-rment. Withholding of original certificates will have significant amplications for the students, especially when they need to present these documents to join for higher education, applying or joining for jobs and other pu rposes . Further, in terms of UGC (Grievance Redressal of students) Regulations 2018, the colleges are barred from withholding or refusing to return any document in the form of (.ertificates of degree, diploma or any other award or other document deposited with it by a students for the purposeli of seeking admission in such institution. 'fh,:refore, I am by direction request the Universiries to address/ instruct to all affiliated Private Colleges under its jurisdiction not to inslst payment of Tuition :ee from the students who are eligible for fee reimbursement and not to deny issuing original certifical:es on the pretext of not receiving fee reimburr;ement from the Government. It is not a healthy practice. Such colleges may be blacklisted and shall not I I i ) SN. J rvp lll27 2025 be considered for free reimbursement, which will also affects affiliation of such colleges. The Colleges shall be directed to follow the instructions of the Government scrupulously and failure in this regard will be viewed seriously and stringent action will be initiated agaanst such colleges. "

8. A Division Bench of this Court vide its iudqment, dated 24.O1.2O2O in W.P.No.21137 of 2O19 dealinq with withholdinq of oriqinal academic qualafacataon certificates of the students observed at DaraqraDh Nos. 29 and 3O as "29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right of the 3rd respondent-Co llege to recover amounts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner / her parent, but we hold that withholdino her orioinal academic oualification certificates. is imoermissible in law.

30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 30O-A of the Constitution of India; Para no.7(ili) of G.O.MS.No.114, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07 .2OL7 is'declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and 6 S\... I rvp 33127_2025 the 3rd respondent is forthrvith directeci to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs. " Theljy,ision Bench verv clearly ob$!:rved that withholdinq the oriqinal academic qualification certificates of the students is imDermissible in law.

9. The Hiqh Court of Madras in "K.Palanisamv Vs. Corresoondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others" of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 2O726 of 2O19 decided on 1?.10.2019 reported in MANU/TN i653A/2Ot9, held that certrficates of students could not be held back by educational ir stitutions citino financial dues.

10. In the iudoment of the Hioh Court .-of Madras, Madurai Benr:h in S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of rsitv and others in Technical Education, Anna U WP(MD) No.14394 of 2OL2 decided on 18.12,2OL2 reported in MANU/TN/2168/2012, it is (lbserved as u nder: 'i 'vould not venture to get into that controversy, namely, ,vhether the College is entitled to collect the balancr: o' fees or not. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the certificates of her daughter'. Those certificates are not like fixed deoosit receiot on which, banks claim a oeneral Iien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the cqrtaficates I 7 SN. J \p -]-1327 2025 cannot be retained at anv rate. Hence, this writ petition is allowed directing the fourth resoondent to return all the orioinal Ce ificates deoosited bv the tretitioner forthwith

11. In the iudqment of the Hioh Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & Ors. in WP (C) 6658 of 2O19 & CM APPL.3O816.O of 2O19. dated

11.O7.2O19, it was held as under:- "8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit could have been filed bv Resoondent No-2 tlpon the parents of the students. which has not been done so far, N o such suit has been instituted by Respondent School for the recovery of outstanding fees. 9. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the School Leavinq Certificates cannot be withheld bv the resDondents."

12. In S.Muthukamatch vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna Universitv in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 of 2Ot2, dated 18.12.2012, the Madras Hiqh Court at Madurai Bench cateqoricallv held that certificates of student is her/his Dropertv. Colleqe cannot detain the said certificates at anv rate. Even if the colleoe has anv monetarv claim, the reiectio n of the said certificates is not the method bv which the claim can be enforced. There is no laen on the certificates of the students l I I 8 sN.l rvp_i3127 202j

13. The Marlras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v. Commissioner the Directorate of Technicai Education reported in 2C'19 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, and ttris Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Tellangana tn W.P.No.293D tt 2022, dated 24.06.2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, t{erlth Medical and Family Welfare,. Hydeabad in W.P.No.21-137 of 2O19, dated 24.Ot.2O2O aind also the High Court oi Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The State rrf Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9606 oI 2O2t, dated 27.1O.2021 directed the college concerned authoritaes to return the certificates and granted liberty to the college to claim fee by availing legal remedies in similar ci rc r.r nr sta nces. L4, Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.O1.i2O2O passed in W.P.No.2tL37 of 2O19, this Court had alrowed W.P.No.34185 of 2O23 vide its order dated 03.06.2024 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 of 2019. I I I I 9 SN. J \,,p Ill27 2025 15. UGC ouidelines, dated 23.04.2OO7. in oarticular, oaraqraoh No.2 reads as under: "2. The Commission is of the view that the I nstitutions/U n iversities. by way of retaining the certificate in original, force retention of admitted students which limits the opportunities for the candidates from exercising other options of joining other institutions of their choice. However. it would not be permissible For institutions a nd Universities to retain the q.h.r.rl /Tn<f itr rti.r n I Fav na Cartifirata .acfa certificate and other documents in orioinal." rlraik <hecf DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

15. This Court opines that the 5th respondent cannot withhold the petitioners' original certificates such as SSC, Intermediate and L.L.B Marks memos, Transfer Certificates and Bonafide Certificates etc., under any pretext. There is no lien on the certiFicate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one institution to join another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from the petitioners towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the 5th respondent to make the l0 SN. J r{p_13127_2025 petitioners pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on lhe part of the 5th respondent in withholding the Transfer Certificates of the petitioners for non-payment of tuition fee.

17. A bare perusal of the record indicates the specific instructions vicie Lr.No.050B/TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 05.08.2024 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above) and the same clearly indicates that specific instructions had been issued by the Government instructing all the affiliated Private Colleges within its jurisdiction not to insist on payment of tuitlon fee by the students who are eligible for the fee reimbursement from the State Governnrent. Further as per the guidelines of UGC, colleges cannot withhold or refuse to return any document such as of certificates of degree, diploma or any other award or other document deposited with it by students for the purpose of seeking admission in such institution. Therefore duly taking into consideration tle view of the various High Courts on the subject issue in various Judgments, referred to and extracted above, this 11 SN, J wp .ll.l27 2025 Court opines that petitioners are entitled for qrant of relief as I prayed for in the present writ petition.

18. Takinq into consideration : (a) The aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The observations on the subject issue pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the students, by the Authorities concerned in the Judgments of the various High Courts (referred to and extracted above), (c) The interim orders of this Court dated

29.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.25952 of 2O25 (referred to and extracted above), (d) The UGC Auidelines, dated 23.O4.2OO7, (e) The specific instructions vide Lr.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated 05.08.2O24 issued by the Secretary, Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad addressed to all the Registrars of Universities (referred to and extracted above), t2 SN. ] \\p_lll27 2025 (f) The averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition in particular par;r No,7 referled to and extracted above, (S) Duly considering the fact as borne on record that the last clate of the verification of original certificates in the allotted colleges is O7.11.2O25, The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The 5th respondent is directed to issue the original academic certificates ol the petationers i.e., SSC,lntermediate, L.L.B Marks Memos, Transfer Certificates, ancl Bonafide Certificates to the petitioners herein forthwith by duly taking into consideration the observations in the various judgments (r'eferred to and extracted above) and the specific instructions issued by the Secretary Telangana Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad, vide l*r.No.O5O8/ TGCHE/Refund of Originals/2024 dated O5.O8.2O24 to all the Registrars of the Universities inctuding the 4th respondent tlniversity herein (referred to and extracted above) and also the UGC guidelines, dated 23.04.2007 (referred to and extracted above). However, there shall be no order as to cost. I To, t.l *" xi27_:ilij As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. ,TRUE COPY' SD/.B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR i SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Secretary, Telangana Secretariat Road, State of Telangana Central Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

2. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Telangana Secretariat Road, Central Secretariat, Khaidabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

3. The Chairman, Telangana counsel for Higher Education, Hyderabad Telangana Opp. Ivlahavir Hospital, IMasab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.

4. The Vice Chancellor, Osmania University Hyderabad. 5. The Chairman, lVlahatma Gandhi Law College, Gangula Govardhan Reddy, NTR Nagar, L.B. Nagar, R R Dist, Telangana. 6. One CC to SRI K.MALLAIAH, Advocate. IOPUC] 7 . Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] B. Two CCs to GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

9. One CC to SRI IM.SRINIVAS REDDY, SC for Osmania University Hyderabad. IoPUCI

10.Two CD Copies. BSK s CC TODAY 1/'E r tl{'iil ?u5 'tar'af l.' ;? HIGH COURT DATED:041111:?025 ORDER WP.No.3332.7 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS 1\