logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6917 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : WP.(MD). No. 22639 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI
Parties : R. Pooja Versus Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan College for Arts & Science for women (Autonomous), Rep. by the Principal/Secretary, Perambalur.
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: N. Ratchaka, Advocate. For the Respondent: J.K. Jayaselan, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 22-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent forthwith return all petitioner original documents such as Secondary School leaving certificate, Higher secondary certificate, Transfer certificate, community certificate and other documents submitted by petitioner at the time of admission in the respondent college within stipulated period of time by considering petitioner representation dated 21.01.2026.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction from the respondent to forthwith return all the petitioner's original documents, such as Secondary School leaving certificate, Higher secondary certificate, Transfer certificate, community certificate and other documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission in the respondent college within stipulated period of time by considering petitioner's representation, dated 21.01.2026.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that she completed her 12th standard at Government Higher Secondary School, Srirangam and passed Higher Secondary education in the year 2022. She secured admission to a threeyear Bachelor of Commerce degree in the respondent College during the academic year 2022-2023.

3. At the time of course under management quota, she was directed to submit all her original SSC marksheet, Higher Secondary marksheet, community certificate and other original education documents and the same has been readily deposited with the respondent institution. The petitioner had to discontinue her studies, after completion of first year due to financial difficulties. Hence, the petitioner approached the respondent College on several occasions and requested to return her original education certificates and other documents.

4. The respondent College refused to return the same Thereafter, she submitted a detailed representation on 21.01.2026, requesting the respondent College to release all the original certificates, which is not considered and hence the Writ Petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent College submitted that the Writ Petition should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and it is for the petitioner to approach the Principal Bench of Madras High Court.

6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ex.Rect (MP) A.Madurai Veeran v. Union of India in W.A. (MD)No.67 of 2005 dated 21.12.2005, categorically contended that the petitioner had sent her representation from Tiruchirappalli district, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The respondent having received the same, have not reacted or passed any order, either accepting the petitioner's plight or rejecting her claim.

7. The Correspondence, which had emanated from the petitioner's residence at Tiruchirappalli, would clearly indicate that the part of the cause of action has definitely arisen within the territory of Madras High Court, more particularly, in the territory of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Under those circumstances, the question of raising territorial jurisdiction by the learned counsel for the respondent College that the petitioner had studied in the respondent College, at Perambalur, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of Madras High Court could not have legs to stand.

8. Since no communication has been sent from the respondent College, the petitioner cannot claim cause of action based on her representation. The petitioner having studied in Perambalur, cannot invoke jurisdiction before this Court.

9. Heard either sides and carefully peruse the materials available on record.

10. The part of cause of action initiated in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, since the petitioner's representation has been sent by the petitioner from Tiruchirappalli. Each and every case has to be dealt with on the basis of the averments made in the petition, truth and otherwise where of being immaterial. This is a case where a student with a poor economic background has joined the respondent College in a management seat, who was not able to pursue further education, due to financial constraints and she had discontinued the course halfway. Under such circumstances, her claim with the respondent College to return her certificates back so, she could pursue some other affordable course has been been left unattended by the respondent College. I do not find any merit with the argument substantially put forth by the learned counsel by the respondent.

11. Hence, the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent College on or before 24.09.2026 and the respondent College is directed to return the petitioner's original documents on or before 25.09.2026.

12. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal