IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE»-.,,'_:'T..,_
DATED THIS THE 27"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 20l'_ib' ' j J v
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HN. NAG/HxiC5HA.N'-I§A$"'
WRIT PETITION No. 2L302fi2.D09'(El5N-RE.Su)' I
BETWEEN:
NITESH RAJ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS V g t v
S/O.RAMANUGRAHAi'RASA'D"SIi$IGH._'._ V
VIRGEM COTTAGE','a:é3,;'N1S"':CROss *
EJIPU RA MAIN ROAD; V_\;1VEK,N-AGA--Rij'-- , A
BANGALORE4 560-'O-_47. . " =.,,,-..."§'E'l"lT1ONER
(BY Sri. Tz:z.HARC'AHME7:.)", ,«._Dx?§) A
AND :
1. THE..SECl§=ET ARY
DI?iPARTMEN"'F-QE__E,DUCATION
- , G'OVElRN'MENT OF KARNATAKA
A _fEAN.GALORE_._
A 2. .'y;i'%IEVE){uF1€U,7TVIVVE SECRETARY
CONSURTNM OF MEDECAL
. ENGINEERING & DENTAL
AA COLLEGE OF KARNATAKA (COMEDK)
» 37,1 FLOOR, RAMANASHREE
" -CHAMBER, LADY CURZON ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 001.
/'
4.,.r~--
3. THE PRINCIPAL.
GSS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
No. 37/12, NEW BYROHAL-L1 ROAD
KOMMAGATTA
GANGERI UPANAGARA
BANGALORE ~ 550 060. RESPONDENTS V :1
(By Sri. K SMALLIKARIUNAIAH, HCGRFOR R51 3 V’
srI.sHAsHII<IRAN sHETTY,Aov., FORaR-2,.._i:v ' I '
Sri. IARAII SRINIVASALU, ADV., FOR R.'3__)
THIS WRIT PETITIONIS FILED 'LENDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONS17_ITU_TfiON_'.OF_'2.I'NDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO DIRECT THE RESPON'DEN._T'S,i_'~TCw__ PAY THE
DEPOSITED AMOUNT OF Rs;-1–,.l_'f,A890(–Vw.fFO 'THEVFETITIONER
WITI-IINTEREST A.No_ETc. I
THIS!HWRITOV_VPETiiTIONV.:–_' COIQIING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING QTHIS. {LIA-¥;I "I"-HE~ 'COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING; 4- % *
. 'In this wiritoetition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to
the ::e:+tVIondentsRtO- sum Of Rs. E,17,890/– with interest.
2;.__It is £lIe_c4jasIe of the petitioner that he joined respondent No.
" '3.__Col3ege o'n.M2f7.07.2007 to the first, Semester of Computer Science
'\.
Ma
2
K
3
BE Course for the academic year 2007-08. At the time of
to respondent No. 3 M College, the petitioner paid in ;. ‘
Rs. .l,17,890/~. Petitioner contends that on 07.03.2007 to_
cancel his admission and to refund the r_jeaposit’7»._1h0ney’V’
Rs.i,l7,890/-. Since the respondentsiailed toflreifund
money, he is before this Court in this writ_petiti*o_n.
3. Respondent No. 3 has’*~e_ntered appearantje and filed their
statement of objections inter alia contending il–rat.’after_admission on
27.07.2007 the petition;§f’attended’theory.’ up to October
2007. Even the ‘adrnissiori-~_of tyhe-._petitioner came to be approved by
the Director of iiTechnical.Ed’;Cati_on, Bangalore and Visveswarayya
Vffechnolegicalii’llniversity,__I3e.lgaum. Even now the name of the
petitioner.Vcontinuesifin-the attendance register maintained by the
.. V respondent No’. –3pj–mi€3iollege. Petitioner has not attended the classes
‘from the.’ monythhhof November 2007. Therefore the respondents
V4’con_tendi’that they are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the
___p’e’titic;ner.
/0
-‘i’i;Rs,r28d9é0t’0i ..
4. From the material on record it is clear that the claim of Vti=.e1._
petitioner is disputed by the respondents. A disputed claim 1′ V
adjudicated by this Court under Article 2?p.p(A)m of the.”Co’nst_itfition;.V
Therefore the writ petition is liable to be re;j4ecle’d…However; if’the._
petitioner is entitled to any refund from respondevnt No. Cfol–.E.eyge,3
he is at liberty to work out his remedy i_n__ac.cot’dance.Wi«th_laW§ if he
so desires before appropriate fortzriry 7
5. With the _–ob’serv_ati_on .__t%1ej writiupietition is hereby
rejected.
Sd/§_
Tudqe