IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUJT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED was THE 31" DAY or JULY 2003 V
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUST!CE E-'_3jA'E:VlL °~.' V 7f X
wan psrmou 510.6737 curiae? (%%Em-aEs%%«iV
BETWEEN:
1
G K vu<As
3120 YEAR M.B.B.3 -- V . V V
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, H V. _ - _ v_ V '
SRLDEVARAJ was-. ME--!Z_}iCA§L COLLEGE, V
TAMKA, xoLAa.;%563"-mi. 3 ' - '
s sowMYA=i V
3129 YEAR M.8V.B;3 ;, V _
AGED A..r.=:« LFT 21v%YEA¥€5;. ~ _ ._ v
SR! DEVARAJ U93, MED!CAi. COLLEGE
TAMKAVKOLAR V56:3».'E:€.¥1". =
AMOGHA vansaa PULI-: ' V _ '
ZNDYEAR 54.5.3.5 . A. V I
AGED.A80UT 23 YEARS, .
SRi EJEVARAJ URS-MEENCAI. COLLEGE
TA.sg;stFV.V'Vi'¥"i"é{§N_» E:LEfivv--IJNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22? OF
THE CONSTtTUTtON OF :;uD:;§T,._RR@g?s»:~ac3 To DIRECT THE R1, STATE To
PAY THE FEE PRE$_¢RtBEo_oR_ EEHRLF 05 THE PETITKDNERS FOR THE
ENTIRE Mass DEGREE COURSE, AND DIRECT THE R6, COLLEGE, TO
..ffr;~::E__1éET:T:oNERa>.._..m CONTINUE THEIR M.B.B.S DEGREE
>r.;ouRs;E wTTHQuT'*:N$IsTtNe THE PAYMENT or-' ANY FURTHER FEE
FRQM" T;-TEE. Awe DRECT THE R6, COLLEGE TO REPAY!
REFU:~£DTHE AME~uNT"wHIcH IS ALREADY PAID BY THE PETITIONERS
"TOWARDS THE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS To PAY THE
ENTTRE FEE PRESCRIBED FOR THE ENTtRE (SOURSE o:= THE£R STUDY
'v"v.tEAB1NG_To'R:.E.E.s DEGREE COURSE on PAR WiTH THE STUDENTS
T_8EL[GNGING TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES.
"THAIS WRIT PETFHON CGNHNG ON FOR PRELEIWNARY HEARRQG
TN 98' C.-TEROUF', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FO{.LOWlNG:
3
ORDER
Petitioners in this petifion have
direction, direcfing the first respendent to fihe’A–.:fee ‘
prescribed fee on behalf of the petiiionergf’v
M.B.B.S Degree course. Furtixeripetitieneree ii
for a direction, directing the
to allow the petitioners degree
ceuree without in.ei$fifng further
fee from the repeylrefund the
amount which py””‘petitioners towards the
fee. Petitioners for a direction to
respondents te”pa_:y the enfireiifee prescribed for the entire
the§r~ gmdifieéding to M.B.8.S Degree course
on shidents beienging to Scheduied Castes
scized:;iee*i’tibes.
A. ii Pefifioners herein claim that, they are the
M.B.B.S degree wifii excellent academic
regards: it is the case of petitioners that, in the
eeunseling conducted by me respondents and pursuant
4
to the allotment of seat by the Common Entrance Test
Celi in the sixth respondent «- Medical College,
petitioners have paid the tuition fees and material chajrgee.:p’ ._
to the respondenm. Be that as it may, the
have taken a policy decision that, peréone
Category I are eligible for full seholarehripand
from payment of Miecellaneoueoie»eiepens%i_
Government Orders vi’:iiAn,nexure but
unfortunately, Government. has is»i7a’,§’*iiii:iened nor
released the to get the
refund of:’:?_e1e_ paid rbyiihem.’ to the College for the
rapective academic ‘Petitioners are persuading
their in respondent – Medical College
i’end;fiiet, iviioilege authorities are now insisting upon
the pay the fees every now and then.
..ijg..Ti’1erefore,ji’ithis their mse that, they are unable to
«..c’eneenti*ate on their studies and maintain their academic
‘:’–ieix;:e§lience. It is the further case of petitioners that,
eimilarly situated persons o had taken their admission
.’___’¢______,_..
5
for the academic year 2004-05 have been sanctioned and
reieased the fees but in case of flweee petitioners,
been denied, resulting in hostile diecriminatioriiiandiipi
against the rights guaranteed under””}?\i*tiole.’A V
Constitution of India. it is the (of
that, since they had no other
to pay the admission fees raieinigiiioans
and therefore, they__wouid__ ital’./itif.’.i’;;iF.\_’—injury and
hardship if thepetppirepriate aimed to
refund the epecific case that,
neither ._ disposed of the
representation:-;_’ “bf_.’eipetitioners nor have issued
any dir_ecition’for refu–nd____of the tuition fees and other fees
paid petitionere as per their seiection. Hence, in View
in iecption vonvititneipert of respondents in not extending
. .,’benefits;”:rNnich the petitioners are entitled to under
t!1eiiC_3-oiireitnment Orderef circulars issued from fime to time
h taking any decision within the reasonable time
refund of the fees paid by petitioners, petitioners
/éiii
6
herein feit necessitated to prment the instant writ petifion
seeking appropriate reiiefs, as stated supra.
3. After careful perusal of the grounds
instant writ petition and the orders passed by iri}
identical matters disposed of on 8″‘
Writ Petition Nos.20990/2004 ahdiébnneéfediméffé}e (Dr§
Naveen Kumar P. and others ..Karnataka: and
others and another decision in Writ
Petition No.226 V3
Director, Bangalore
and this Court, in the
aforesaid sirnilart matters, has’ issued a direction to the
authority of respondent –
take__appropriate decision in pursuance of
the reievantvG~o?;{ernment Orders and circulars and extend
they are other wise found eligible and
Therefore, having regard to the facts and
it -oirounistances of the case, I am of the view that, keeping
7
___n______,___.__
7
the request of petitioners in ebeyance and not extending
the benefit to the petitioners is not justifiable.
4. in the light of the discussion made
writ petition flied by petifioners is dispsdsed ‘efv
orders passed by this Court dated 8″‘ ~.$.i005lt1i:?SS§’ed
we Petition Nos- 20999/2904 end’ii’eonnecte’d (gr.
Neveen Kumer P. and and
others and another decisien in Writ
Petition No- i hBf””:Mattigett£ Vs.
Directer, Bangalore
and others) stated therein with a
direction to ” consider we request of
‘pefitio§ters;>_.tegvardin”g’vrefsnd of fees already paid and to
“direction to the subordinate Officiels
dealiiingil with the matter regarding refund of
‘ feevvand other fees to the petitioners, if they are
A found eligibie and entitled to and dispose of the
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
8
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order, if not already considered and disposed of. La
5. With these observations, me writ Petitior:’..”:’f3″!e!5A5’A o.
petitioners is disposed of.
6. Learned Additional Goveroménf Aofiaooate
permitted to file memo of apoéékance of
respondents1 to 5 within ifjree .toda§:
Judge
BMW’