Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARUN RAJIEV, S/O. RAJIEV MATHEW versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ARUN RAJIEV, S/O. RAJIEV MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 32239 of 2006(K) [2007] RD-KL 10325 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32239 of 2006(K)

1. ARUN RAJIEV, S/O. RAJIEV MATHEW,
... Petitioner

2. VISHAK G., S/O. S.V.GANAPATHY IYER,

3. ARUN FRANCIS, S/O. FRANCIS THOMAS,

4. VINEETH V., S/O. T.K.VIJAYAKUMAR,

5. MISHNALEKHA R., D/O. T.K.RAJAPPAN,

6. RESHMI CHANDRAN, D/O. K.N.CHANDRAN,

7. KRISHNENDHU PRAKASAN, S/O.V.K.PRAKASHAN,

8. ARUN P.A., S/O. K.V.ANIRUDHAN,

9. SAJNA S., D/O. R.SREENIVASAN,

10. RINCY THOMAS, D/O. U.V.THOMAS.

11. BIPIN K. RAJ, S/O. K.R.RAJAPPAN PILLAI,

12. GEORGE ALEXANDER, S/O. P.J.ALEXANDER,

13. SREERAG S.N., S/O. NARAYANAN

14. KAVYA RAVINDRAN, D/O. P.N.RAVINDRAN

15. SREEDEVI K.S., D/O. K.B.SURESH BABU,

16. ANNA ALPHONSA SEBASTIAN,

17. JISHA RAJAN, D/O. RAJENDRAN PILLAI,

18. JIYA SAM, D/O. SAM KURIAN,

19. MAYA P., D/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR,

20. JIBIN GEORGE, S/O. K.C.GEORGE,

21. VISHNU PAVANAN, S/O. LETHA PAVANAN,

22. SHREERAMMOHAN, S/O. P.MOHANAKURUP,

23. RAJIMOL BALAKRISHNAN, D/O. BALAKRISHNAN

24. SUMAYYAMOL M.M., D/O. MUHAMMED ISMAYIL,

25. SABITHA K.M., D/O. MOIDEEN,

26. VIPIN P.M., S/O. P.K.MANI,

27. RATHEESH K.P., S/O. P.P.DAMODARAN,

28. ULLAS T. ATTUPURAM, S/O. A.M.THOMAS,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,

3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.32239 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner Nos. 1 to 22 were admitted in the Government merit quota during the academic year 2004-2005 and the petitioners Nos. 23 to 28 were admitted in the Government merit quota under the Lateral Entry Scheme during the academic year 2005-2006 for B.TEch Course in the Mahatma Gandhi University College of Engineering, Muttom, Thodupuzha. The complaint of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the students, who were admitted for the academic year 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 in the Government merit quota are paying fees only at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per year whereas the petitioners are made to pay the fees at the rate of 38,700/- per year which according to them is clearly discriminatory and illegal. Therefore, the petitioners seek the following reliefs.

"a. To declare that respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to demand or collect fees from the students admitted in the Sate Merit Quota during the academic year 2004-2005 and in the State Merit Quota under the Lateral Entry Scheme during the academic year 2005-2006 only at the same rate of fees collected from merit quota students admitted during the academic years 2003-04 and 2005-06;

b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to WP(C)No.32239/06 2 respondents 2 and 3 to allow the petitioners to continue their study in the 2nd respondent Mahatma Gandhi University College of Engineering, Muttom, Thodupuzha by paying fees applicable to similar students admitted in the merit quota in the same college during 2003-2004 and 2005-2006

c. To declare that any reduction of fee introduced shall be uniformly applied to similarly placed students, without discrimination on the basis of the year of admission;

d. to direct refund of the excess fee collected from the petitioners and;

e. to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the University.

3. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by my decision in W.P.(c)Nos.26703/05 and 7429/06 in favour of the petitioners, wherein I had held that such demand for fess is discriminatory and unconstitutional. That being so, following that decision, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed.

4. Accordingly, I declare that the petitioners in this writ petition are not liable to pay and respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to demand or collect fees in excess of the fees payable by merit quota students admitted during the academic years 2003-2004 and 2005- 2006. The excess amount collected, if any, shall be either refunded to the petitioners or adjusted against the tuition fees payable for WP(C)No.32239/06 3 subsequent years. Orders in this regard shall be issued and refund or adjustment made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of collection till date of payment. The writ petition is allowed as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd WP(C)No.32239/06 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.