Constitution of India – Art.32 – Payment of damages – First Respondent-medical college admitted petitioner in the MBBS degree course – Petitioner paid a total fee of Rs.21.65 lakhs to the first respondent – Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) cancelled MBBS admissions granted by the first respondent due to noncompliance with its orders – Petitioner sought refund of the fees from the first respondent – Pursuant thereto, petitioner received amount of Rs.20 lakhs but remaining amount of Rs.1.65 lakh was not paid – Petitioner claimed that she lost one year of education as a result of the legal proceedings emanating from the cancellation of the admissions granted by the first respondent and sought payment of damages – Held: Inappropriate to quantify damages in present proceedings – Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee had issued a notice to the petitioner, fixing a hearing for the purpose of deciding her claim, amongst the claims of other students – Also, another Bench of the Supreme Court had issued directions by consent requiring first respondent to deposit “double the amount” of “the fees deposited by each one of 150 students” with the college – However, it left the exact quantification of the amount in each case to be determined by the Committee – Moreover, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in support of her claim – Thus, any determination in present proceedings of the quantum of damages payable to the petitioner would be contrary to the underlying purpose & object of the order passed by the coordinate Bench – Petitioner directed to pursue her claim before the Committee.
The petitioner has moved these proceedings under Article
32 of the Constitution seeking an order for the payment of damages by the first respondent-medical college. The basis of the claim is that she has lost one year of education as a result of the legal proceedings emanating from the cancellation of the admissions granted by the first respondent. Petitioner submitted that the first respondent was guilty of violating the regulations governing the process of admissions. As a result, students have had to suffer, the petitioner being one among them. Hence, present Writ Petition.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. It would be inappropriate for this Court to quantify the damages in the present proceedings as the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee has issued a notice to the petitioner on 28 November 2018, fixing a hearing for the purpose of deciding upon her claim, amongst the claims of other students. The Committee, in its review order dated 29 May 2018 has already adverted to this aspect. [Paras 25, 26][16-A, B]
2. Earlier, another two Judge Bench of this Court issued directions by consent on 29 August 2018 requiring the first respondent to deposit “double the amount” of “the fees deposited by each one of 150 students” with the college. This batch of 150 students includes the petitioner. Technically, it is true that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings and that the order dated 29 August 2018 is a consent order. However, any determination by this Court in the present proceedings of the quantum of damages payable to the petitioner would be contrary to the underlying purpose and object of the order passed by the coordinate Bench. In the order dated 29 August 2018, the two Judge Bench laid down the principle – refund of double the amount of the fee – but left the exact quantification of the amount in each case to be determined by the Committee. Quantification of damages in monetary terms in the present writ petition will have a bearing on the pending proceedings before the Committee. That proceeding covers the entire batch of 150 students. Moreover, in pursuance of the order, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in support of her claim. [Para 26][16-C-E]
3. There can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the loss of a valuable year which was occasioned by the misdemeanors of the first respondent. A student who has been deprived of a valuable year in pursuing her studies, cannot be left in the lurch. It is in this background, that the explanation that the complaints made by the father of the petitioner were withdrawn only because there was an urgent need to obtain a refund of the fee, to enable the petitioner to secure admission to the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences must be understood. The Committee has in fact recorded a finding of fact that the withdrawal was not voluntary and was occasioned by the serious impediment in receiving a refund of fees. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the principle which was formulated in the orders of this Court dated 29 August 2018 and 4 October 2018. Since the issue has been remitted back to the Committee by a coordinate bench, following the norm of judicial discipline, this Court inclined to follow the same course of action. [Para 27][16-F-H; 17-A, B]
Sankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 487; Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; MCI v. State of Kerala (2018) SCC Online SC 1467; The Principal, Kannur Medical College v. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges in Kerala (Special Leave Petition (C) No 23225 of 2018) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.