APHC010594252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30898/2025 Between: 1. KOLLI VARSHA, D/O KOLLI GHINNA VENKATA REDDY AGED 28 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O 64-8-10/2. SRI SURYA VIEW, FLAT NO.3/A RAGHAVA NAGAR, NSM SCHOOL ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. DR NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ANDHRA PRADESH/REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VIJAYAWADA. 2. NRI MEDICAL COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, CHINA KAKANI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not returning the original certificates of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of 2 higher fees to the 2nd respondent college and in action of the 1st respondent in not directing the 2nd respondent to return the original certificates to the petitioner despite representation sent by way of email dated 18.09.2025 addressed to the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and subjecting the petitioner to mental agony, thereby violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to return the original documents to the petitioner, and to pass such other orders. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forth with return the original certificates to the petitioner without insisting on the petitioner to pay the extra fees demanded by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G V RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 2. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30898 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in not returning the original certificates of the Petitioner on the ground of non-payment of higher fee and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The Petitioner after completing M.B.B.S., Degree had appeared for NEET Post Graduation examination. Thereafter, the Petitioner was allotted in Respondent No.2-College in M.S., (Obstetrics & Gynecology) Course under Category-C NRI (S2) in Phase 1 (Management Quota). 3. As per the understanding of the Petitioner, the fee structure was @ Rs.10,00,000/- per each year for three years. It is stated that the Petitioner had passed out the examinations conducted in the year 2024. However, Respondent No.2-College was demanding to pay balance fee of Rs.25,00,000/- per year and the Petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.45,00,000/- i.e., balance fee @ Rs.15,00,000/- per year for three (03) years. On account of 4 non-payment of the due amount, the original certificates of the Petitioner i.e., i) Degree Certificate, ii) Study, Conduct and Character Certificates i.e., last studied institution, iii) SSC Certificate, iv) BIEPC/MM, v) MBBS TC were being withheld by Respondent No.2- College. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed. 4. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that the Petitioner had secured All India NEET rank of 16978 and was provisionally allotted a seat in Respondent No.2-College in M.S., (Obstetrics & Gynecology) Course under Category-C NRI (S2) in Phase 1 (Management Quota) counselling conducted by Respondent No.1-University. It is stated that the fee structure as per G.O.Ms.No.56, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 29.05.2020 for P.G., Medical Courses for all the specialties for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23 was @ Rs.50,00,000/- per year for the quota under which the Petitioner was admitted. 5. It is further stated that Respondent No.2-institution was informed by the Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Association (APPMCDCMA) to consider the seat allotted to Petitioner as one under the “Chief Minister’s quota”, as the association was informed by the office of the Chief Minister. It is further stated that the customary practice when a seat is allotted under Chief 5 Minister’s quota is that 50% of the fee payable by the student will be borne by the APPMCDCMA and the 50% of the fee has to be paid by the student. 6. Accordingly, the fee payable by the Petitioner was only Rs.25,00,000/- per year instead of Rs.50,00,000/-. It is stated that the Petitioner made payment @ Rs.10,00,000/- for each academic year instead of Rs.25,00,000/- and therefore there is a balance of Rs.45,00,000/- payable by the Petitioner. It is also stated that circulars were issued by Respondent No.2-College management from time to time reminding the students for payment of pending fee and these circulars were circulated in the students’ Whatsapp group. 7. It is also stated that Respondent No.2-institution primarily depends on the timely payment of fee from all categories of students, including those admitted under the Management/NRI quota to meet its operational and statutory commitments. The fee structure prescribed from Management/NRI quota students forms a significant portion of the institution’s revenue, which is essential for payment of staff salaries, maintenance of infrastructure, procurement of laboratory and academic materials and adherence to regulatory standards. Any default or delay in payment of such fee directly disrupts the financial equilibrium of the 6 institution and gravely affects the smooth functioning of the management. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020 and the Judgment of Madras High Court in S. Muthukamatchi v. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai and others1, wherein the aspect of withholding of educational certificates was considered and held that there is no authority for the colleges to withhold the educational certificates. The learned counsel also disputed the annual fee @ Rs.50,00,000/- and that there is no letter issued to Petitioner demanding balance fee nor the Petitioner was restrained from attending classes or exams on that count. 9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that very allotment indicates the quota under which the Petitioner was admitted and the corresponding fee structure as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 29.05.2020 establishes the dues. It was further contended that benevolence by the management to permit the Petitioner to attend classes and examinations cannot be presumed to validate the fee paid by the Petitioner. It is further stated that quality of service and faculty 1 2012(SCC) Online Mad 5165 7 would suffer if the fees as per the Rules are not paid. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner suppressed the actual fee payable though she was well aware of the same and relied on the Division Bench Judgments of this Court in W.A.No.847 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023 and W.A.No.1253 of 2025, dated 27.11.2025. 10. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. T. Venkata Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1-University as well as Sri G.V. Ramakrishna Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No.2-College. 11. The issue that falls for consideration is “Whether the Respondent-College is justified in withholding the educational certificates of the Petitioner?” 12. Consistently, various High Courts have held that the Colleges do not have right to withhold educational certificates for non-payment of fees. The most quoted Judgement in recent times on this aspect, is the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020 and Paragraphs 29 and 30 thereof are relevant and the same reads as under; “29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lakhs 8 from the petitioner/her parent, but we hold the withholding her original academic qualification certificates, is impermissible in law. 30. Therefore, the Writ Petitions is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violate of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; Para no.7(iii) of G.O.MS.No.114, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07.2017 is declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 193); and the 3rd respondent is forthwith directed to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs.” 13. Similar views were expressed by the High Court of Madras in S. Muthukamatchi Vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai and others2 and Paragraphs 4 and 6 thereof reads as under; “4. The Certificates of the Petitioner’s daughter represent her property. They cannot be retained by the College at any rate. Even if the College has any monetary claim, the rejection of the said Certificates is 2 2012(SCC) Online Mad 5165 9 not the method by which, the claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the Certificates of the Petitioner’s daughter. 6. I would not venture to get into that controversy, namely, whether the College is entitled to collect the balance of fees or not. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the Certificates of her daughter. Those Certificates are not like fixed deposit receipt on which, banks claim a general lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the Certificates cannot be retained at any rate. Hence, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the Fourth respondent to return all the original Certificates deposited by the petitioner forthwith. No costs.” 14. The observations of the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & Ors.,3 would be relevant to the facts of this case, wherein it was held as under:- "8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit could have been filed by Respondent No.2 upon the parents of the students which has not been done so far. No suit has been instituted by Respondent School for recovery of outstanding fees. 3 W.P.(C) 6658/2019, dated 11.O7.2019 10 9. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the school Leaving Certificates cannot be withheld by the respondents. 15. Relying on the above-quoted Judgments, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Petition No.14468 of 2023 on 25.07.2023 and had directed the Respondents to release the educational certificates. In the Judgements relied upon by the counsel for the Respondents i.e., W.A.No.847 of 2023, dated 13.10.2023 and W.A.No.1253 of 2025, dated 27.11.2025, it is to be noted that the Division Bench accepted the principle that the educational certificates cannot be withheld, but refused to exercise discretion under Article 226 in favour of the Petitioner, on account of suppression of facts about quantum of fee. These Judgments are fact-centric. 16. Coming to the facts of this case, the Petitioner was allotted to Respondent No.2-College under NRIM-OBG-S2 Course. It is mentioned in the allotment letter that the Tuition Fee for the College/Course (per annum) is as fixed by the Government. The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.56, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 29.05.2020. As per the said G.O., the fee payable for Clinical Degree/Diploma under NRI Quota seats (S2 and S3 Category) is Rs.50,00,000/- per year. 11 17. So far so good, but in Paragraph 7(c) of the Counter-Affidavit, it was stated that the Petitioner was admitted under Chief Minister’s quota, where under 50% of the fee payable by the student will be borne by the APPMCDCMA and the 50% of the fee has to be paid by the student. This ratio of payment is not traceable to any of the documents filed by the Respondents and this plea of the Respondents brings in an element of doubt regarding the fee payable by the Petitioner i.e., @ 50% of the fee recommended as per G.O.Ms No.56, dated 29.05.2020 or less than the same, as understood and claimed by the Petitioner. Apart from that, the Counter-Affidavit is also silent as to whether APPMCDCMA had paid 50% of the fee on behalf of the Petitioner. 18. Another aspect of the case is, the Petitioner was admitted under NRI quota and the Petitioner was sponsored by an NRI by the name Mr. Bhimireddy Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o BH. Lakshama Reddy, R/o Drostenburg, Amsterdam City, as per Annexure-II declaration in non-judicial bond paper, which was passed on to the Court. It was this sponsor, who had agreed to pay the fee and had given an undertaking to the Respondent-College. In effect, the contract with regard to fees was between the sponsor and the Respondent-College and the Petitioner, therefore, could not be made answerable for payment of fees. In the event of default of the sponsor, the cause of action for 12 recovery of balance fees as claimed by the Respondent-College would be to initiate recovery proceedings against the sponsor. 19. The educational certificates are the property of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2-College cannot withhold the same, as they do not have any lien over the same either contractually or legally. 20. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions; (i) The Respondent No.2-College shall release the educational certificates of the Petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. 21. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPTHY VIJAY, J Date: 23.04.2026 IS 13 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30898 of 2025 Date: 23.04.2026 IS