K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is for quashing of an order passed by the University denying the release of the FDR of Rs. 10 lakhs and tuition fee. The demand was a sequel to an order passed by this court in CWP No. 13753 of 2010 enabling the college to substitute by way of bank guarantee the fixed deposit already submitted towards endowment fund. While disposing of the writ petition, the court observed that endowment fund is in consonance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Versus State of Karnataka and others - : (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 to provide for a security to teachers/students, who are employed/admitted for private affiliated college in the event of closure of the institution midway or any other eventuality that might harm the academic career of the students or cause hardship to the teachers or faculty employees. The interest of the University, the court reasoned would be appropriately met if instead of FD, a bank guarantee is secured.
(2.) IT is a matter of subsequent event that the college which was affiliated to Baba Farid University was later transferred to the Guru Ravi Dass Ayurvedic University, and the petitioner claims that it has offered the bank guarantee to the second respondent University. The demand for return of the fixed deposit and the tuition fee is resisted on a plea that there is already a resolution of the Board of Directors of the University to allow to itself the benefit of interest on the fixed deposit amount so far accrued and it could therefore retain the interest. I cannot approve of any unilateral decision of the University through a Board resolution to grant to itself any particular right to retain the interest. An endowment fund is to meet the contingency which we have already explained above. Endowment fund is not to be touched till such contingency arises. In the very nature of things, therefore, it ought to mean any accretion to such fund could also be used only to meet with the eventualities contemplated for creation of the fund. It is not the University's case that there was any situation warranting a claim to use any part of the fund to meet any contemplated eventuality. There is no basis given in the reply or in the impugned letter justifying the retention of interest. If there was no admission of liability by the petitioner college itself to allow the University the benefit of interest nor is any particular service shown by the University to have been made available to the petitioner as consideration, the retention of the amount must be taken as unjustified. It is also not shown to me that the University decision to appropriate interest on the Endowment Fund was communicated to the college and it had tacit or explicit assent to such appropriation. Under such circumstances, the retention of interest is untenable. The University is directed to return the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. Although there is a reference to the release of tuition fee, I have not been shown through any document that has made possible the University to recover the tuition fee collected by the petitioner. There is also a demand for return of the tuition fee of Rs. 3,62,250/ - which the petitioner has set forth in the petition as having been made over to the University. In the reply filed, there is no denial of the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to refund of money with interest at 9% from the date when the amount was received by the University on behalf of the petitioner till the date of payment.
(3.) THE impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed on the above terms.;