RIYA GEORGE versus KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. on 21 February 2019

4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2019] 4 S.C.R. 4

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

A

RIYA GEORGE

v.

KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1247 of 2018)

BFEBRUARY 21, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD ANDHEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Art.32 – Payment of damages – FirstRespondent-medical college admitted petitioner in the MBBS degreeCcourse – Petitioner paid a total fee of Rs.21.65 lakhs to the firstrespondent – Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) cancelledMBBS admissions granted by the first respondent due to non-compliance with its orders – Petitioner sought refund of the feesfrom the first respondent – Pursuant thereto, petitioner receivedDamount of Rs.20 lakhs but remaining amount of Rs.1.65 lakh wasnot paid – Petitioner claimed that she lost one year of education asa result of the legal proceedings emanating from the cancellationof the admissions granted by the first respondent and sought paymentof damages – Held: Inappropriate to quantify damages in presentproceedings – Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee had issuedEa notice to the petitioner, fixing a hearing for the purpose of decidingher claim, amongst the claims of other students – Also, anotherBench of the Supreme Court had issued directions by consentrequiring first respondent to deposit “double the amount” of “thefees deposited by each one of 150 students” with the college –However, it left the exact quantification of the amount in each caseFto be determined by the Committee – Moreover, in pursuance of theorder, the petitioner has received a notice from the Committee toappear in support of her claim – Thus, any determination in presentproceedings of the quantum of damages payable to the petitionerwould be contrary to the underlying purpose & object of the orderGpassed by the coordinate Bench – Petitioner directed to pursue herclaim before the Committee.

The petitioner has moved these proceedings under Article32 of the Constitution seeking an order for the payment ofdamages by the first respondent-medical college. The basis ofH

the claim is that she has lost one year of education as a result ofthe legal proceedings emanating from the cancellation of theadmissions granted by the first respondent. Petitioner submittedthat the first respondent was guilty of violating the regulationsgoverning the process of admissions. As a result, students havehad to suffer, the petitioner being one among them. Hence, presentWrit Petition.

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. It would be inappropriate for this Court to quantifythe damages in the present proceedings as the Admission andFee Regulatory Committee has issued a notice to the petitioneron 28 November 2018, fixing a hearing for the purpose of decidingupon her claim, amongst the claims of other students. TheCommittee, in its review order dated 29 May 2018 has alreadyadverted to this aspect. [Paras 25, 26][16-A, B]

Conclusion

2. Earlier, another two Judge Bench of this Court issueddirections by consent on 29 August 2018 requiring the firstrespondent to deposit “double the amount” of “the fees depositedby each one of 150 students” with the college. This batch of 150students includes the petitioner. Technically, it is true that thepetitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings and that theorder dated 29 August 2018 is a consent order. However, anydetermination by this Court in the present proceedings of thequantum of damages payable to the petitioner would be contraryto the underlying purpose and object of the order passed by thecoordinate Bench. In the order dated 29 August 2018, the twoJudge Bench laid down the principle – refund of double theamount of the fee – but left the exact quantification of the amountin each case to be determined by the Committee. Quantificationof damages in monetary terms in the present writ petition willhave 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 receiveda 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 isentitled to be compensated for the loss of a valuable year which AB

C

DEFG

H

[2019] 4 S.C.R.

Awas occasioned by the misdemeanors of the first respondent. Astudent who has been deprived of a valuable year in pursuing herstudies, cannot be left in the lurch. It is in this background, thatthe explanation that the complaints made by the father of thepetitioner were withdrawn only because there was an urgent needto obtain a refund of the fee, to enable the petitioner to secureBadmission to the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences must beunderstood. The Committee has in fact recorded a finding of factthat the withdrawal was not voluntary and was occasioned by theserious impediment in receiving a refund of fees. Hence, thepetitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the principle whichCwas formulated in the orders of this Court dated 29 August 2018and 4 October 2018. Since the issue has been remitted back tothe Committee by a coordinate bench, following the norm of judicialdiscipline, this Court inclined to follow the same course of action.[Para 27][16-F-H; 17-A, B]

DSankalp Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2016) 7SCC 487; Modern Dental College and Research Centrev. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; MCI v.State of Kerala(2018) SCC Online SC 1467; ThePrincipal, Kannur Medical College v. AdmissionSupervisory Committee for Professional Colleges inEKerala (Special Leave Petition (C) No 23225 of 2018)– referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.1247 of 2018.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

GHuzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Liz Mathew, M.P. Philip, NavneetR., R. R. Kumar, Ms. Manjula Gupta, G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L.,Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, K. V. Mohan, Mrs. TessyVarghese, N. M. Varghese, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Thepetitioner, who is a student of Medicine, has instituted these proceedingsunder Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the firstrespondent to compensate her for the loss of an academic year.

2. In Sankalp Charitable Trust v Union of India[1], this Courtissued a direction on 28 April 2016 to the effect that admissions to MBBS/BDS courses shall be conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test[2]. On 9 August 2016, the Union government directed allStates and Union Territories to conduct combined/centralised counsellingfor the 2016-17 MBBS admissions, consistent with the judgment of thisCourt in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State ofMadhya Pradesh[3].

3. The petitioner secured 97.16 percent marks in her 12th standardBoard examinations. In 2016, she qualified for NEET 2016-17 with apercentile score of 94.36.

4. On 20 August 2016, the Government of Kerala directed allmedical colleges to admit only students who were selected by theCommissioner for Entrance Examinations[4] through common counselling.A Writ Petition[5] was instituted in the Kerala High Court by medicalcolleges for challenging this direction.

5. On 26 August 2016, the High Court issued interim directions tothe effect that MBBS admissions for 2016-17 shall be conducted on thebasis of NEET 2016 and that all applications shall be made online tofacilitate transparency with regard to merit and the identities of studentapplicants. On 3 September 2016 the Admission Supervisory Committeefor Professional Colleges in Kerala[6] issued directions to medical collegesin the state, stating that admissions in contravention of those directionswill not be registered by the Kerala University of Health Sciences.

6. On 15 September 2016, ASC cancelled all the admissions madeby the first respondent (Kannur Medical College) after conducting anenquiry, on the ground that it had neither called for online applications 1 (2016) 7 SCC 487 2 NEET

3 (2016) 7 SCC 353 4 CEE

5 WP (C) No 28041 of 2016 6 ASC

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Anor did it comply with the requirements in the revised approval ofprospectus dated 10 September 2016. On 17 September 2016, ASC issuedan order reiterating its directions and called upon all colleges to publishrelevant details online. Applications for the MBBS degree course withthe first respondent for 2016-17 were also invited. The petitioner appliedfor admission pursuant to this process.B

7. On 26 September 2016, the petitioner handed over all relevantdocuments, including her certificates to the first respondent and securedadmission to the first year of the MBBS degree course. The petitionerpaid a total fee of Rs 21.65 lakhs to the first respondent which comprised,inter alia, of Rs 10 lakhs as annual fees, Rs 10 lakhs as fee deposit andCRs 1.65 lakhs as a special fee. On 28 September 2016, this Court passedan order directing that all counselling should be centralised[7]. Classesfor the MBBS degree course commenced on 1 October 2016.

8. Shortly thereafter, on 2 October 2016, the ASC cancelled MBBSadmissions granted by the first respondent due to non-compliance withDits orders. The Government of Kerala was requested to direct CEE toconduct centralised admissions. Against the order of cancellation, thefirst respondent moved a Writ Petition[8] before the Kerala High Court.On 4 October 2016 the petitioner registered for spot allotment with thefirst respondent. On 6 October 2016, the High Court, in an interimorder, directed the first respondent to submit the records for spot allotmentEto the CEE. On 13 October 2016, CEE submitted its report decrying theabsence of cooperation by the first respondent. The Commissioner hadthis to state in his report:

“12. The proceedings of the Spot Admission Process started at9.30 am on 07.102016 at the Auditorium, Govt. Medical College,FThiruvananthapuram. Officials including the Director of MedicalEducation, the Joint Director of Medical Education and officialsrepresenting various Medical and Dental Colleges were alsopresent. The representatives of Kannur Medical College,Anjarakkandy, Kannur reported at the venue of the Spot AdmissionGonly at 11.30 am and they furnished the following records.

1. List of total applications received (without NEET rank & Roll.No) – 448 applicants.

2. List of disqualified applications: 7 applicants 7 SLP (C) No 9862 of 2016

8 Writ Petition (C) No 32186 of 2016

H

3. Category-wise Merit list (without NEET rank & Roll No.) –448 applicants.

4. List of candidates admitted – 150 candidates

5. List of students registered with KUHS – 150 candidates(Annexure 14 – copy of lists)

The persons who claimed to be the representatives of the collegedidn’t furnish the letter of authorization from the college authorities.Whey they were asked to register their attendance, theyimmediately left the counselling hall around 12’O clock withoutregistering their attendance.”

9. On 28 October 2016, the High Court delivered a judgmentimposing costs of Rs one lakh on the first respondent and directing theASC to scrutinise all the records of the medical colleges with regard tothe admissions made. This order of the High Court was challengedbefore this Court[9]. On 14 November 2016 admissions to the firstrespondent were cancelled again due to non-compliance with variousdirections including the non-publication of lists and conducting admissionsoffline, among other reasons. On 22 March 2017, this Court declined tointerfere with the order of the Kerala High Court. Pursuant to the saidorder, on 31 March 2017, the Registrar of Kerala University of HealthSciences directed the principal of the first respondent to discharge allthe 150 students who were admitted for the academic year 2016-17 andreport compliance.

10. The petitioner, together with other students, instituted a writpetition[10] in the Kerala High Court to challenge the order of cancellation.The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 22 June 2017, which wasconfirmed by this Court on 10 July 2017.

11. The Kerala Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admissionsin Medical Colleges) Ordinance 2017 was promulgated by the Governor.The Ordinance sought to regularise MBBS admissions in certain medicalcolleges against the payment of Rs 3 lakhs per student as a regularisationfee. The Ordinance was held to be ultra vires by this Court in MCI vState of Kerala[11 ]The petitioner, in the meantime, appeared for NEET2017 and secured admission at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences.

9 SLP(C) No 32580-81 of 2016 10 Writ Petition (C) No 15088 of 2017 11 (2018) SCC Online SC 1467

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A12. On 26 September 2017, the father of the petitioner addresseda communication to the principal of the first respondent seeking a refundof the documents and fees submitted to the college since the petitionerhad joined another college for pursuing her MBBS course. The letterread thus:B“Sub: Request to withdraw from MBBS Course My daughter Riya George has joined for the first year MBBSCourse in Kannur Medical College, Anjarakandy for the academicyear 2016-17. Since the admission to your college is under dispute,my daughter no longer waned to continue with the course. MyCdaughter has already joined another college for MBBS Course. Irequest you to return/refund all the documents and fees submittedby me/my daughter at the earliest.”

13. Simultaneously the petitioner’s father addressed a letter tothe Station House Officer of the Chakkarakkal police station, KannurDwhere he had lodged a complaint on 26 September 2017 stating that thedispute with the college had been settled against the receipt of an amountof Rs 20 lakhs on 25 September 2018 towards full and final settlement,as a result of which the petitioner did not wish to proceed with thecomplaint any further. The petitioner’s father had also instituted a petitionbefore the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for MedicalEEducation in Kerala. The father of the petitioner submitted an applicationfor the withdrawal of the petition in the following terms:

“Petition filed by the petitioner KV George in the above matter topermit him to withdraw the above complaint.

Since the matter has been talked over and settled between theFpetitioner and respondent amicably and as the petitioner hasreceived Rs 20 lakhs as per Demand Draft No 960174 and 960175for Rs 10 lakhs each drawn on Canara Bank, Chakkarakal Branchdated 25.9.2017 in full and final settlement of the claim of thepetitioner, the petitioner does not want to proceed with the aboveGcomplaint any further.

Hence it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Chairman may bepleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above complaintin the interest of justice.

Dated this the 26[th] day of September 2017.”

H

14. It is admitted that two demand drafts dated 25 September2017, each in the amount of Rs 10 lakhs towards refund of the fee werereceived by the petitioner. The father of the petitioner submitted anaffidavit dated 26 September 2017 in the following terms:

“I, KV George, S/o Varkey, aged 58 years, Kanjiramkuzhi HouseChengalayi PO, Sreekandapuram, Kannur do hereby solemnly andundertake as follows:

My daughter Riya George joined for the first year MBBS Coursein Kannur Medical College, Anjarakandy for the academic year2016-17. Since the admission to the aid college is under dispute,I have filed complaint before Chakkarakal police station againstthe college and its various officials and management. I have alsofiled a complaint before admission and Fee Regulatory Committee.The matter has been talked over and settled between me and thecollege and I have received Rs 20 lakhs as per Demand Draft No960174 and 960175 for Rs 10 lakhs each drawn on Canara Bank,Chakkarakal Branch dated 25.9.2017 towards the amount claimedby me from the college towards the full and final settlement.Therefore, I undertake to withdraw the complaint filed before theabove Forum and to withdraw from the course. I have alreadysubmitted letters/memos to that effect. I undertake to appear beforethe above Forums in person or through lawyer and submit orallyor in writing any other submissions required by concernedauthorities to fully and effectively closing the entire dispute betweenthe college and me.”

15. The Chairperson of the Admission and Fee RegulatoryCommittee for Medical Education passed an order dated 26 September2017 permitting the withdrawal of the complaint filed by the petitioner ashaving been settled. The order reads as follows:

“ORDER

Sri KV George, the father of Riya George who got admission tothe MBBS Course in the academic year 2016 in the respondentcollege, Kannur Medical College filed this petition for directingthe respondent college to return the amount of Rs 21,65,000/-remitted by him towards fee. The matter has been settled betweenthe parties. As per the settlement the complainant has agreed toreceive 2-post-dated cheques each for Rs 10 lakhs drawn on A

BCDE

F

G

H

12SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ACanara Bank, Chakkarakkal branch dated 25.09.2017 in full andfinal settlement of the claim of the petitioner.

In view of the settlement between the parties, Sri KV George ispermitted to withdraw the complaint. The settlement is recorded.”

16. Subsequently, it appears that another complaint was filed byBthe petitioner’s father stating that he had received an amount of Rs 20lakhs but, that the remaining amount of Rs 1.65 lakhs had not been paid.He also claimed an amount of Rs 3.50 lakhs towards interest on theamount paid. Rejecting the objection of the first respondent that therehad been a full and final settlement between the parties, the CommitteeCpassed an order on 29 December 2017 allowing the claim for the balanceof Rs 1.65 lakhs. The Committee rejected the claim for interest, leavingit open to the complainant to work out his remedies in an appropriateforum. The first respondent filed a petition for review of the order dated29 December 2017 on the ground that there had been a final settlementof Rs 20 lakhs. While rejecting the review petition, the CommitteeDobserved thus:

“Shri KV George submitted that he was in a hurry to get back thecertificates and the money and in the above circumstances therewas no other alternative but to sign in the Memo prepared by thecollege for withdrawing the complaint. He further submitted thatEhe was in dire need of the money in connection with the admissionof his daughter, and hence he had no other alternative, but to signin the Memo prepared by the college. After considering all theaspect the committee had taken the view that the signing of theMemo seeking permission to withdraw the complaint was not anFact made on free consent of the complainant but was made incompelling circumstances. Hence the Principles of Waiver andEstoppel shall not have application in the present circumstances.”

In consequence, the Committee has maintained that the collegewas liable to return an amount of Rs 1.65 lakhs to the petitioner.

G17. In the meantime, on 29 August 2018, a consent order waspassed by a two Judge Bench of this Court in The Principal, KannurMedical College v Admission Supervisory Committee forProfessional Colleges in Kerala[12]. The terms of the consent order,inter alia, envisage that: 12 Special Leave Petition (C) No 23225 of 2018H

“1.The college shall return the double of the amount than the feesdeposited by each one of 150 students with college, by 4September, 2018. It is submitted that the amount shall be remittedin the bank account of each of the students. Let compliance reportincluding bank statements, bank account numbers with names ofstudents be filed not only in this Court but also to the AdmissionSupervisory Committee (ASC). The ASC shall ascertain andsubmit the report whether amount has been refunded, as ordered,to the students and bank accounts belong to them.”

18. Subsequently, the issue of refund was revisited by anotherorder of the two Judge Bench of this Court dated 4 October 2018. Beforethis Court, the ASC submitted a report on 1 September 2018 recordingthat diverse amounts ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 35 lakhs were collectedfrom most of the 150 students who had been admitted by the college.Dealing with this aspect of the matter, this Court observed thus:

“It is a seriously disputed fact in the instance case how muchamount had been collected from each of the students and whathas been refunded as per the Order passed by this Court is notthe appropriate sum. In the facts and circumstances of the case,as certain material has been placed on record by the college inthis Court only and that was not placed before the ASC andstudents have also come up with certain documents indicatinghow they had collected amount paid, they are also required to beconsidered by the ASC. This Court cannot conduct factual enquiry.It was suggested by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counselthat the parties may be relegated to the ASC for adjudication ofthe aforesaid aspect. The 6 ASC to consider the material whichmay be placed on record by the respective parties and take adecision in accordance with law on the basis of the evidenceadduced in each of the case with respect to each of the students.”

19. On the aspect of refund, the Court directed that an inquiry bemade by the ASC and an appropriate order should be passed thereon.In pursuance of the above directions of this Court, the ASC issued anotice on 28 November 2018 stating that the complaints of 12 studentswere being posted for hearing on 3 December 2018. The complainantsand the first respondent were directed to appear before the Committee(with relevant documents) for establishing the right of claim. The studentsto whom a notice has been issued include the petitioner.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A20. The petitioner has moved these proceedings under Article 32of the Constitution seeking an order for the payment of damages by thefirst respondent. The basis of the claim is that she has lost one year ofeducation as a result of the legal proceedings emanating from thecancellation of the admissions granted by the first respondent. Learnedcounsel submitted that the first respondent was guilty of violating theBregulations governing the process of admissions. As a result, studentshave had to suffer, the petitioner being one among them. Learned counselfor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should not be relegated topursue her claims before the Committee since that will only delay theproceedings. She appealed to this Court to bring a finality to the matterCby a suitable award for damages against the first respondent.

21. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the firstrespondent to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of awilful suppression of material facts by the petitioner. Mr Huzefa Ahmadi,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondentDsubmits that the petition contains no disclosure of the following materialfacts:

(i) The complaint lodged with the police was withdrawn specificallyon the ground that an amount of Rs 20 lakhs had been receivedin full and final settlement from the first respondent; E(ii) An application was submitted on 26 September 2017 to theAdmission and Fee Regulatory Committee for the withdrawalof the complaint in lieu of the receipt of Rs 20 lakhs in full andfinal settlement;

(iii) An affidavit filed by the father of the petitioner withdrawingFall claims; and

(iv) By an order dated 26 September 2017, the Chairperson of theAdmission Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Educationpermitted the withdrawal of the complaint.

22. We have, during the course of the hearing, perused relevantGparts of the writ petition. In the synopsis and the list of dates, there is asignificant absence of the facts which have been disclosed in the counteraffidavit filed by the first respondent. The only reference to the refundof an amount of Rs 21.65 lakhs is contained in para 2(o) of the SpecialLeave Petition in the following terms:

H

“A perusal of the factual backdrop thus clearly reveals that thePetitioner was a victim of deliberate actions of Respondent thatwere illegal and contrary to the directions of the Court, MCI andthe ASC. Even for refund of Rs 21,65,000/- collected by theCollege, the Petitioner had to move the ASC since the Collegerefused to refund moneys deposited.”

23. Apart from this, the petitioner has annexed a copy of the orderdated 29 May 2018 passed by the Admission and Fee RegulatoryCommittee on the review petition filed by the first respondent againstthe order of the Committee dated 29 December 2017 for the refund ofan amount of Rs 1.65 lakhs. Material facts pertaining to what had beentranspired prior to that order have not been disclosed in the pleadings.We find this conduct of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory.

24. While moving a writ petition before this Court, the petitionerought to have made a full, fair and candid disclosure of all facts. Thefact that while seeking a refund of the fees paid to the first respondent,the father of the petitioner had executed several documents by which hehad unconditionally withdrawn the claim, was certainly a materialcircumstance which ought to have been disclosed before this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that facts pertaining to thewithdrawal of the claim, including the documents which were executedby her father, were unknown to both her and her father. She submittedthat these documents were obtained by the first respondent when thefee was refunded. It is not possible to accept this contention. Theexecution of the documents is not in dispute. That apart, the petitionerhas annexed a copy of the review order passed by the Committee. Thereis sufficient indication in the order to lead the petitioner to a knowledgeof what had transpired earlier. Despite this, a full statement of facts hasnot been made. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmits that the claim was withdrawn under duress, since the petitionerwas required to obtain a refund of fees, having secured admission to theAmrita Institute of Medical Sciences. In order to enable the Court toconsider the plea of duress, it was the bounden duty and obligation of thepetitioner to disclose a full and complete statement of facts. This has notbeen done.

25. Ordinarily, this should result in the dismissal of the writ petitionunder Article 32 of the Constitution. However, justice to the petitionershould not become a victim of the prestige of this Court. In deciding not A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato dismiss the petition, we have borne in mind the fact that the Admissionand Fee Regulatory Committee has issued a notice to the petitioner on28 November 2018, fixing a hearing for the purpose of deciding uponher claim, amongst the claims of other students. The Committee, in itsreview order dated 29 May 2018 has already adverted to this aspect,which we have extracted earlier.B

26. There is another reason why we are of the opinion that itwould be inappropriate for this Court to quantify damages in the presentproceedings. As we have noted earlier, another two Judge Bench ofthis Court issued directions by consent on 29 August 2018 requiring thefirst respondent to deposit “double the amount” of “the fees depositedCby each one of 150 students” with the college. This batch of 150 studentsincludes the petitioner. Technically, it is true that the petitioner was nota party to the earlier proceedings and that the order dated 29 August2018 is a consent order. However, any determination by this Court inthe present proceedings of the quantum of damages payable to theDpetitioner would be contrary to the underlying purpose and object of theorder passed by the coordinate bench. In the order dated 29 August2018, the two Judge Bench laid down the principle – refund of doublethe amount of the fee – but left the exact quantification of the amount ineach case to be determined by the Committee. Quantification of damagesin monetary terms in the present writ petition will have a bearing on theEpending proceedings before the Committee. That proceeding covers theentire batch of 150 students. Moreover, in pursuance of the order, thepetitioner has received a notice from the Committee to appear in supportof her claim.

27. There can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitledFto be compensated for the loss of a valuable year which was occasionedby the misdemeanors of the first respondent. A student who has beendeprived of a valuable year in pursuing her studies, cannot be left in thelurch. It is in this background, that the explanation that the complaintsmade by the father of the petitioner were withdrawn only because thereGwas an urgent need to obtain a refund of the fee, to enable the petitionerto secure admission to the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences must beunderstood. Middle class parents do not have the luxury of resources.We must form a robust understanding of the circumstances in which thefather of the petitioner withdrew his complaint. The Committee has infact recorded a finding of fact that the withdrawal was not voluntaryH

and was occasioned by the serious impediment in receiving a refund offees. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the principlewhich was formulated in the orders of this Court dated 29 August 2018and 4 October 2018. Since the issue has been remitted back to theCommittee by a coordinate bench, following the norm of judicial discipline,we are inclined to follow the same course of action.

28. In order not to prejudice the case of the petitioner, we leave itopen to her to pursue her claim before the Committee. The petitionerwould be at liberty to pursue her claim before the Committee in terms ofClause 1 of the order dated 29 August 2018 passed by this Court asclarified by the subsequent order dated 4 October 2018. We request theAdmissions Committee to take a decision expeditiously and within aperiod of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

29. The Writ Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Writ Petition disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H