227 MANJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. petitioner is that the petitioner deposited a fee of Rs.67,000/ admission with the respondent No.2 a better option hence, as the petitioner did not of Rs.67,000/ should be refunded along with 24% interest. 2. submits that once, the petitioner ha College and had also attended lectures while studying there and had also availed the hostel facilities, merely thereafter that the petitioner left the respondent No.2 fees. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7515 Date of Decision : 02 MANJIT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Ms. Parbeen Kumari Dhariwal, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malkit Singh Dhillon, DAG Punjab. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the gri petitioner is that the petitioner deposited a fee of Rs.67,000/ admission with the respondent No.2-College but thereafter, the petitioner got a better option to shift to another College hence, as the petitioner did not study in the respondent No.2 of Rs.67,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the respondent No.2 should be refunded along with 24% interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responde submits that once, the petitioner had got admission in the respondent No.2 College and had also attended lectures while studying there and had also availed the hostel facilities, merely thereafter that the petitioner left the respondent No.2-College for a better option IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7515-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02-04-2025 ........Petitioner VERSUS ........Respondent(s) JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Ms. Parbeen Kumari Dhariwal, Advocate for Advocate for the petitioner. Malkit Singh Dhillon, DAG Punjab. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner deposited a fee of Rs.67,000/- while taking College but thereafter, the petitioner got to shift to another College, same was availed by him and in the respondent No.2-College, the fee deposited by the petitioner with the respondent No.2-College should be refunded along with 24% interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State got admission in the respondent No.2 College and had also attended lectures while studying there and had also availed the hostel facilities, merely thereafter that the petitioner left the for a better option is no ground for the refund of JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI evance being raised by the while taking College but thereafter, the petitioner got and College, the fee College State got admission in the respondent No.2- College and had also attended lectures while studying there and had also availed the hostel facilities, merely thereafter that the petitioner left the is no ground for the refund of SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.04 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7515-2001(O&M) -2- 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance. 4. It is a conceded position that the petitioner got admission with the respondent No.2-College. After getting admission, the petitioner studied there for approximately 5 ½ months whereby he also availed the hostel facilities and thereafter got admission in another College. The act of leaving the respondent No.2-College is voluntarily on the part of the petitioner. Once, the petitioner got admission with the respondent No.2-College and studied there, the deposited fees of Rs.67,000/-, same cannot be refunded back. 5. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there exists any such rule where if a candidate leaves the Institution after joining the same and studying there for 5 ½ months while availing the hostel facilities also, the fees should be refunded, no such order can be passed in the absence of such Rule. 6. In the present case, no such terms and conditions of the admission have been pointed out by the petitioner to claim the refund of the amount of fee of Rs.67,000/- deposited. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. The present petition stands dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 02-04-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.04.04 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document