Sarmila vs the Principal

Sarmila vs The Principal

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1412951

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1412951
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Decided On: Feb 26, 2026
Case Number: WP/1017/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarmila

Respondent

The Principal

Excerpt

.....refund policy. however, the petitioner has come before this court only praying for return of the certificates and she is not requesting the fee.4. even though notice has been served, the first respondent is not appearing before this court. this court specifically requested the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent university to get page2 of 4instructions as to whether there is any bond or special condition in the prospectus. the learned counsel for the second respondent university would submit that from the end of the university, there is no bond mandated and to their knowledge they have not prescribed any prospectus condition.5. under the said circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.the first respondent is directed to return the petitioner’s original academic and personal certificates, including the transfer certificate, 10 th and 12th mark sheets, statement of marks, community certificate and native certificate, within one week from the date of production of the web copy of theorder without waiting for the certified copy of the order. no costs.neutral citation: yes/no nsl to the vice - chancellor, page3 of 4d.bharatha chakravarthy, j.nsl page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Sarmila ..Petitioner Vs
1. The Principal, Kailash Women’s Nursing College, Tharamangalam, Nangavalli Main Road, Periyasoragai, Nangavalli, Tamilnadu - 636 502.
2. The Vice - Chancellor,
..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to return the petitioner original academic and personal certificates, including Transfer Certificate, 10th and 12th Marksheets, Statement of Marks, Community Certificate and Native Certificate within stipulated time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Muthuraja For Respondents: Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan for R2 No appearance for R1

ORDER

The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the first and second respondents to return the petitioner’s Original Academic and Personal Certificates, including the Transfer Certificate, 10th and 12th Mark Sheets, Page1 of 4 Statement of Marks, Community Certificate and Native Certificate within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the

material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was admitted into the first respondent institution for the B.Sc. Nursing course. During the admission process, she had submitted her original certificates and also paid a total sum of Rs.1,91,000/- towards admission and tuition fees. Due to unexpected health and unforeseen circumstances, she was unable to continue her studies. Therefore, she formally requested discontinuation of the course and sought the return of the original certificates and refund of the fees. The college has not done so.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-returning

of the certificates is illegal and even the fee refund has to be given as per the University Grants Commission fee refund policy. However, the petitioner has come before this Court only praying for return of the certificates and she is not requesting the fee.

4. Even though notice has been served, the first respondent is not appearing before this Court. This Court specifically requested the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent University to get Page2 of 4

instructions as to whether there is any bond or special condition in the prospectus. The learned counsel for the second respondent University would submit that from the end of the University, there is no bond mandated and to their knowledge they have not prescribed any prospectus condition.

5. Under the said circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.

The first respondent is directed to return the petitioner’s Original Academic and Personal Certificates, including the Transfer Certificate, 10 th and 12th Mark Sheets, Statement of Marks, Community Certificate and Native Certificate, within one week from the date of production of the web copy of the

order without waiting for the certified copy of the order. No costs.

Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL To The Vice - Chancellor, Page3 of 4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

NSL Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Sarmila vs The Principal Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy