1. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

               “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of Respondents more particularly of Respondents 1, 2 and 3 in not taking any action against Respondents 4 & 5 for highhandedly withholding the original certificates of Petitioners daughter by name Pargi Shriya Reddy as illegal and violative of my rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 21A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 4 & 5 to issue immediately the original certificates of Petitioners daughter, by name Pargi Shriya Reddy with College Admission No. 3000, Student ID.No.12879 and Roll No. 2558274050 and pass....”.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under:

               The petitioner’s daughter, Pargi Shriya Reddy, studied at Alphores Girls Junior College, run by Respondents 4 and 5, during the academic years 2023–25, stayed in the college hostel, and completed her Intermediate education with 98% marks. The petitioner had paid all fees for both years, including tuition, books, dresses, and other charges, along with a refundable caution deposit. Despite full payment, Respondents 4 and 5 allegedly demanded an additional ₹75,000 for issuing the Long Memo, Bonafide Certificate, and Transfer Certificate, and sent an undated, unsigned handwritten demand through registered post. As the petitioner’s daughter requires these documents to participate in ongoing counseling and admission processes for higher education, the petitioner informed the authorities that the demand was illegal and submitted a complaint to the Board of Intermediate and the Higher Education Department. The conduct of Respondents 4 and 5 in withholding the certificates despite full payment, and the inaction of Respondents 1, 2, and 3, violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner’s daughter under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution of India, thereby risking the loss of an academic year. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

               (A) This Court vide its order, dated 07.07.2025 passed in the present Writ Petition No.18393 of 2025, observed on the proceeding sheet as under:-

               Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.4 & 5 have returned most of the certificates to the petitioner except one certificate. However, he seeks time to get specific instructions.

               Registry is directed to print Sri M.Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 & 5 and list on 10.07.2025.

5. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment, dated 24.01.2020 in W.P.No.21137 of 2019 dealing with withholding of original academic qualification certificates of the students observed at paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 as under:-

               “29. We are not expressing any opinion on the right of the 3rd respondent-College to recover amounts towards the entire course fee or the bond amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner / her parent, but we hold that withholding her original academic qualification certificates, is impermissible in law.

               30. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; the action of the 3rd respondent-College in not returning the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner who had discontinued study of M.B.B.S. I year course in the said college, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; Para no.7(iii) of G.O.MS.No.114, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C.1) Department, dt.05.07.2017 is declared to be ultra vires the powers of the State Government under the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983); and the 3rd respondent is forthwith directed to return the original academic qualification certificates of the petitioner to her. No costs.”

               The Division Bench very clearly observed that withholding the original academic qualification certificates of the students is impermissible in law.

6. The High Court of Madras in “K.Palanisamy Vs. Correspondent, Vidya Vikash Matriculation School and Others” of Madurai Bench in WP (MD) 20726 of 2019 decided on 17.10.2019 reported in MANU/TN/6538/2019, held that certificates of students could not be held back by educational institutions citing financial dues.

7. In the judgment of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in S.Muthukamatchi vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University and others in WP(MD) No.14394 of 2012 decided on 18.12.2012 reported in MANU/TN/2168/2012, it is observed as under:

               "I would not venture to get into that controversy, namely, whether the College is entitled to collect the balance of fees or not. The main grievance of the petitioner is about the certificates of her daughter. Those certificates are not like fixed deposit receipt on which, banks claim a general lien in terms of Section 171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the certificates cannot be retained at any rate. Hence, this writ petition is allowed directing the fourth respondent to return all the original Certificates deposited by the petitioner forthwith."

8. In the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Court on its own Motion Vs. Directorate of Education & Ors. in WP (C) 6658 of 2019 & CM APPL.30816.0 of 2019, dated 11.07.2019, it was held as under:-

               "8. There are methods of recovering the outstanding school fees with the school. Even a suit could have been filed by Respondent No.2 upon the parents of the students, which has not been done so far. No such suit has been instituted by Respondent School for the recovery of outstanding fees.

               9. In view of these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the School Leaving Certificates cannot be withheld by the respondents."

9. In S.Muthukamatch vs. The Director of Technical Education, Anna University in W.P.(MD) NO.14394 of 2012, dated 18.12.2012, the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench categorically held that certificates of student is her/his property. College cannot detain the said certificates at any rate. Even if the college has any monetary claim, the rejection of the said certificates is not the method by which the claim can be enforced. There is no lien on the certificates of the students.

10. The Madras High Court in R.Pradeep Raj v. Commissioner, the Directorate of Technical Education reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad.9385, and this Court in Kaluri Shiva Sai Teja vs. The State of Telangana in W.P.No.2930 of 2022, dated 24.06.2022 and D.Vaishnavi vs. State of Telangana, represented by its Prinicipal Secretary Health Medical and Family Welfare, Hydeabad in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, dated 24.01.2020 and also the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Andrha Pradesh Private Unaided Schools Management Association v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.9606 of 2021, dated 27.10.2021 directed the college concerned authorities to return the certificates and granted liberty to the college to claim fee by availing legal remedies in similar circumstances.

11. Based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.21137 of 2019, this Court had allowed W.P.No.34185 of 2023 vide its order dated 03.06.2024 granting identical relief as granted in W.P.No.21137 of 2019.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as represented by the learned counsel on 07.07.2025 when the matter came up for consideration, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have returned most of the certificates to the petitioner’s daughter except one certificate, but however during the pendency of the present writ petition, proceedings, dated 28.08.2025 had been issued by the 5th respondent College informing the petitioner’s daughter that the consolidated marks memo(Long Memo) is received from the Board of Intermediate by the respondent No.5 and further, the petitioner’s daughter was called upon to clear fee i.e., due amount of Rs.75,000/- to collect the said marks memo of the petitioner’s daughter herein. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

13. This Court opines that the 5th respondent cannot withhold the petitioners’ original certificate, i.e., consolidated marks memo(Long Memo) under any pretext. There is no lien on the certificate of the students since the certificate of the student is his/her property. This Court opines that the right of students to obtain their Certificates from one institution to join another institution cannot be denied by the concerned authorities merely because the tuition fee is due and if any amount is due from the petitioners towards such fees, the proper course available to the respondents is to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners for recovery before the competent Court and coercive tactics cannot be adopted by the 5th respondent to make the petitioners pay the tuition fee. This Court opines that there is no justification on the part of the 5th respondent in withholding the consolidated marks memo(Long Memo) of the petitioner’s daughter for non-payment of tuition fee. Therefore, duly taking into consideration the view of the various High Courts on the subject issue in various Judgments, referred to and extracted above, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

14. Taking into consideration :

               (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

               (b) The observations on the subject issue pertaining to withholding of original certificates of the students, by the Authorities concerned in the Judgments of the various High Courts (referred to and extracted above),

               (c) The orders of this Court dated 07.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18393 of 2025 (referred to and extracted above),

The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The 5th respondent is directed to issue original certificate of the petitioner’s daughter i.e., Intermediate consolidated marks memo(Long Memo) to the petitioner’s daughter herein by duly taking into consideration the observations in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to cost. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.