IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 31002 of 2007(N)
1. RAMLA MAKKAR, W/O.MAKKAR, AGED 40
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
4. THE PRINCIPAL, KMCT ENGINEERING
5. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 31002 OF 2007 N
=====================
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s son Sri.Mohammed Shan, was admitted in the
4th respondent College for B.Tech. It is stated that at the time of
admission, they had paid Rs.2.25 lakhs towards capitation
fee/donation and Ext.P1 receipt shows that they had also paid an
amount of Rs.74,405/-. On joining in the college, he was
admitted in a hostel by name Hira Hostel on the 27th September
2007. It is alleged that on 28/9/07 morning, four senior students
of the college came to his room and ragged him, severely
inflicting physical and mental torture. Thereupon, the student
rang up his relation, who contacted the warden of the hostel and
requested for lodging a police complaint. The warden assured him
all safety and security of the student, but then the assurance was
proved to be futile when the ragging repeated on 4/10/2007
WPC 31002/07
:2 :
evening at about 7.50 P.M when six senior students allegedly
tortured the child physically and mentally. The child was
threatened against making any complaint to the authorities. On
being informed, the Warden was again contacted in the same
evening with a request to report the matter to the police. It is
stated that this also did not yield any result and the situation
continued as before on 5/10/2007. As a result of the continued
ragging, it was not possible for the child to continue his studies
and he informed his father employed in Quatar and requested
him to save his life. Thereupon, the father came to Kerala,
contacted respondents 4 and 5, who were indifferent to the
fervent pleas made by the father and the student. In these
circumstances, the parents were convinced that the child cannot
continue his education in the college and finally, they submitted
Ext.P2 complaint requesting inter alia for returning the fees and
original certificates and other amounts collected from them.
Even as there was no response to this complaint, this writ
petition was filed.
2. The prayers made in this writ petition are for directing
WPC 31002/07
:3 :
the authorities to take action not only against the students
involved, but also against the College authorities. There is a
further payer to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to return the
certificates entrusted to them on admission and also refund
Rs.2.25 lakhs collected towards capitation fee and also
Rs.74,405/- towards fees. Petitioner is also seeking
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
3. In view of the allegations in the writ petition, notice
was ordered to be served on respondents 4 and 5, who have
filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit while they deny
the allegation of having collected capitation fee/donation, they
admit receipt of Rs.74,405/- as tuition fee. It is stated that the
petitioner’s child had submitted Ext.R4(1) complaint on
3/10/2007 and that based on the complaint, an enquiry
committee consisting of three teachers was constituted by Ext.R4
(2) with a direction to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit
report within 24 hours. It is stated that notice was issued to the
students “who indulged in the above act” and directed them to
report with their parents and Ext.R4(3) is the notice. According to
WPC 31002/07
:4 :
the 4th respondent, the Committee conducted a detailed enquiry,
heard the students, “who were involved in the incident” and
Ext.R4(4) report was submitted. It is also stated that based on
the report “this respondent took undertaking from the parents of
the students who were alleged to be involved in the act and also
got unconditional apology letter from these students”. Ext.R4(5)
is the copy of the undertaking so obtained. On this basis, it is
contended that the allegation of ragging on 4/10/2007 and
5/10/2007 is incorrect as according to the 4th respondent, enquiry
was going on these two days. It is also stated that “as the
matter stood and situation was brought under the control and
being monitored under the supervision of this respondent”, they
were surprised to receive Ext.P2 letter from the petitioner making
allegations of recurrence of the incident. The counter affidavit
concludes by stating that in view of Ext.R4(7) if the student
discontinues the course for any reason, he is bound to pay the
entire tuition fee. Therefore, according to the respondents, even
if the student wants to go away, he cannot ask for refund of the
amount paid, but has to pay entire tuition fee for return of the
WPC 31002/07
:5 :
documents.
4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, while
counsel for the petitioner reiterated the complaint of continued
ragging and consequential inability of the student to continue in
the College, counsel for the 4th respondent was vehemently
denying those allegations. During the course of the submissions,
he had also stated that College is not against returning the
documents, but the student has to comply with Ext.R4(7)
undertaking that he has given at the time of admission.
5. In view of this, what calls for decision is whether the
management can justifiably demand that the student should
comply with the undertaking he has given for return of the
documents particularly in the circumstances that are available in
this case.
6. According to the petitioner, the reason for the
discontinuance of course was the continued ragging that has
occurred. It is true that the respondents 4 and 5 have denied
this averment. On a reading of the counter affidavit and also the
documents produced along with the affidavit, I am inclined to
WPC 31002/07
:6 :
think that the anxiety of the 4th respondent is more to protect
himself rather than to remedy the situation. I am also inclined to
think that what the 4th respondent says is not fully correct.
7. In the counter affidavit, the 4th respondent has totally
denied the allegations of ragging and for this purpose is entirely
relying on Ext.R4(4) enquiry report. A reference of Ext.R4(4)
shows that it is a very unsatisfactory report. An enquiry report
cannot be more laconic and in the counter affidavit, while the
report is described as a detailed one, there is absolutely no
reasons given for the conclusions in the report nor has the
Committee adverted to the materials they say they have
collected.
8. It totally remains a mystery as to why six senior
students in the college visited the room of the petitioner’s child, a
fresh student in the college. It is unimaginable as to why the
whole crowd should visit the room of a fresher in search of a text
book. This conduct of the students is not beyond shadow of doubt
and I am surprised that the Committee did not find anything
unnatural in this and has fully exonerated the students.
WPC 31002/07
:7 :
9. If what the Committee and the Principal says is to be
believed, it again is a mystery as to why they should have
obtained Ext.R4(5) undertaking from the students and also from
the parents concerned. The undertaking is to the effect that “In
the near future, any act of ragging will never happen from my
part. I apologise for whatever has happened yesterday”. To any
sensible mind, the wording of this undertaking would sound as
one suggesting that before giving this undertaking, ragging has
infact taken place. Otherwise, if the students are as innocent as
the 4th respondent would want this court to believe, the students
need not have apologised for whatever that had happened on the
previous day.
10. Equally apologetic is the undertaking of the parent on
Ext.R4(5). If the students have not committed any act of
delinquency, the parent would not have left it totally free to the
College authorities to take any action against the students in
future. Therefore, going by Ext.R4(5), I am inclined to take the
view that what the 4th respondent has disclosed in his affidavit is
not fully correct. I am also unsatisfied in the manner in which
WPC 31002/07
:8 :
the Committee has dealt with this issue.
11. At the same time, in view of the denial of the 4th
respondent of having collected the capitation fee/donation, I am
not able to conclude this issue in favour of the petitioner.
Similarly, the petitioner’s claim of compensation also is
unsustainable. If at all the petitioner feels that in view of any
damage that has been caused they should be compensated, it is
for the petitioner to adduce evidence and establish her case
before a Civil Court. Such claims cannot be decided in a writ
petition and that too based only on the affidavits of the rival
contestants.
12. Similarly in so far as the first prayer in the writ
petition to take action against the college and the student
concerned, in view of the lapse of time, that has passed from the
date of occurrence, I am not inclined to grant that relief although
I am not satisfied with the conduct of the 4th and 5th respondents.
13. Resultantly, I am inclined to dispose of this writ
petition directing that respondents 4 and 5 shall return all the
certificates of the petitioner’s son along with the fee of
WPC 31002/07
:9 :
Rs.74,405/- acknowledged by them in Ext.P1, without insisting
on the petitioner or the student complying with Ext.R4(7)
undertaking given by the student.
In view of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed and
respondents 4 and 5 will refund the fee collected from the
petitioner and return the documents to him, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within one week of production of a copy of
this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp