College cannot withhold a student’s original certificates over discontinuation fees, Madras High Court rules

The petitioner enrolled in the B.H.M.S. course at the third respondent college for 2025–2030 and deposited fees.

After becoming unwell, she discontinued the course and sought the return of her original school certificates, which the college had retained at admission.

The college allegedly refused to return them unless she paid the remaining course fees.

The first respondent relied on Clause 24(2) of the relevant prospectus, which required a discontinuing candidate to pay a penalty of ₹1,00,000 after the admission cut-off date.

The petitioner therefore sought a writ of mandamus for return of her certificates.

Whether the college could retain the petitioner’s original educational certificates to secure payment of discontinuation fees or other claimed dues.

Whether the college was required to return the certificates while leaving recovery of any discontinuation fee to lawful proceedings.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which it may issue appropriate directions to protect a petitioner’s rights.

It considered Clause 24(2) of the prospectus, which provided for a ₹1,00,000 penalty when a candidate discontinued after the specified admission cut-off date.

The Court held that educational certificates cannot be retained as a lien or means of coercing payment of a debt; any discontinuation fee must instead be recovered through lawful methods.

The Court treated the obligation to pay any discontinuation fee as distinct from the petitioner’s entitlement to retrieve her certificates.

Even though the prospectus provided for a penalty, that provision did not entitle the respondents to retain the certificates as security for payment.

The Court stated that the respondents were not money lenders and could pursue lawful recovery proceedings, but had to release the certificates first.

The order records that the first respondent asserted the penalty had not been paid, while later stating that payment of the ₹1,00,000 discontinuation fee was not disputed.

The petitioner or an authorised person could collect them by producing the order and giving an undertaking and acknowledgment.

The first and third respondents remained at liberty to initiate lawful proceedings to recover any discontinuation fee; the writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.