Debashree Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal

Calcutta High Court 16 Jun 2010 Writ Petition No. 8962 (W) of 2009 (2010) 06 CAL CK 0002
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 8962 (W) of 2009

Hon'ble Bench

Aniruddha Bose, J

Advocates

Binay Kumar Panda, for the Appellant; Tapan Kumar Jana for the Respondent No. 4 and Nandini Mitra for the University, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

Aniruddha Bose, J.@mdashIn this writ petition, the complain of the petitioner is that she had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,00/- with the Pailan College of Management and Technology for admission in B.C.A. course but the said sum is not being refunded, The petitioner had withdrawn from the admission process as she had got chance to pursue her study in a different institution in which in her perception she would have had better career opportunities. The petitioner''s request for refund of the said sum went unredressed. Ms. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the university submitted that under the rules, the sum deposited is required to be refunded to the students.

2. Appearing for the institution, learned counsel submits that it was only Rs. 65,000/- which was deposited, and a copy of the receipt thereof has been made annexure "P1" to the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however contends that his client had paid additional sum of Rs. 15,000/- as development fees, which is denied by learned counsel for the institution.

4. I do not think in this writ petition I can examine the question as to whether the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- was paid or not as there is no evidence on payment of the said sum in its entirety by the writ petitioner. However the petitioner shall be entitled to get back Rs. 65,000/-, which in my opinion has been illegally withheld since the month of July, 2008.

5. Under these circumstances, I direct the respondent No. 4 to issue a demand draft in favour of the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- within a fortnight. In addition the respondent No. 4 shall pay cost of Rs. 3400/- as there is no plausible reason disclosed as to why the refund was not being made for almost two years. No such explain is given in course of hearing also. The said sum of Rs. 3400/- as cost shall also be paid within the prescribed period of 15 days.

6. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

7. There shall, however be, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

From The Blog
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Wins ₹4 Crore Tax Case at ITAT Mumbai
Nov
07
2025

Court News

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Wins ₹4 Crore Tax Case at ITAT Mumbai
Read More
Supreme Court to Decide If Section 12AA Registration Alone Grants Trusts 80G Tax Benefits for Donors
Nov
07
2025

Court News

Supreme Court to Decide If Section 12AA Registration Alone Grants Trusts 80G Tax Benefits for Donors
Read More