Madras HC Says Institute Must Account For 8 Unrecovered Laptops, Directs 3 Recovered Ones Be Given To Students

In brief

The question

Whether the institution could avoid responsibility for laptops stolen while stored on its premises, on the basis that the theft was reported and criminal proceedings had followed.

The court held

The Court found no infirmity in the impugned proceedings as to the institution’s responsibility, but modified them to the extent that the institution was liable to account for the eight unrecovered laptops.

It also directed

It directed the institution to distribute the three recovered laptops to the students for whose benefit they were supplied; any recovered laptop found unworkable was to be returned to the Government, which was to arrange a replacement.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, an aided educational institution, received government laptops for distribution to students.

¶ 2–6 · pp. 2–4

In September 2015, 11 of 41 laptops stored at the institution were stolen; a criminal case was registered, and three laptops were later recovered and ordered returned to the institution.

¶ 2–6 · pp. 2–4

The Director of Employment and Training directed the institution to remit Rs.1,81,720 for the 11 laptops, and the Regional Joint Director warned that the amount could be deducted from the institution’s aid.

¶ 2–6 · pp. 2–4

The institution challenged those proceedings under Article 226, arguing that the theft had been reported and that it should not be required to pay for the missing laptops.

¶ 2–6 · pp. 2–4

The State contended that the institution, as the recipient of grant-in-aid and custodian of the laptops, was responsible for their safekeeping.

¶ 7 · p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the institution could avoid responsibility for laptops stolen while stored on its premises, on the basis that the theft was reported and criminal proceedings had followed.

¶ 9–10 · p. 6

ii.Whether the impugned recovery proceedings should be modified in light of the recovery of three laptops and the non-recovery of the remaining eight.

¶ 9–11 · pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that an educational institution entrusted with government-provided laptops for students’ benefit must exercise due diligence in their safekeeping and cannot avoid the consequences of failing to do so.

¶ 10 · p. 6

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 1

04Reasoning

The Court found that three laptops had been recovered, while the investigation had not recovered the other eight.

¶ 9 · p. 6

It considered that the institution had a duty to exercise due diligence over the laptops entrusted to it and rejected the request to prevent the respondents from insisting on payment.

¶ 9–10 · p. 6

However, because three laptops had been recovered, the Court modified the proceedings to limit the institution’s liability to accounting for the remaining eight and directed that the recovered laptops be distributed to the intended students.

¶ 11 · p. 7