Calcutta High Court’s Rs 9.5 lakh fee refund order to private dental college
Times of India | 25 June 2026
Kolkata: Return a fee of Rs 9,50,000 to the student, who sought to leave the college as she found the institute did not have “proper educational facilities”, six days after taking admission, the Calcutta High Court directed a private dental college, pointing out that they had to follow the University Grant Commission (UGC) fee refund policy.
The single bench of Justice Krishna Rao on Tuesday also directed the college to return the student’s original certificates, including her bachelor’s degree.
The student, a graduate from Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, appeared for NEET in 2024. In the third round of counselling, she got admission to Haldia Institute of Dental Sciences and Research (HIDSAR) for an MDS course in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
She paid tuition, admission and student activities fees on Aug 29, 2024 and started attending classes from Sept 2, 2024. But on Sept 10, 2024, she informed the authorities of her decision to withdraw. “The college does not have proper educational facilities and guidance,” she reasoned. But the college, instead of refunding the fees and returning the documents, asked her to pay the remaining Rs 18 lakh of the total Rs 27 lakh of her fee to get her original documents back.
The student’s counsel cited UGC notification of June 12, 2024, which stated a student was entitled to a 100% refund. But the college’s counsel argued that though the college was recognised by UGC, it was governed under the Dental Council of India and West Bengal Dental Counseling Committee and that UGC was not the regulatory body.
But Justice Rao held that the college would have to abide by the UGC policy. “The guidelines issued by the UGC dated June 12, 2024, provide for a full refund of fees, if the admission is cancelled up to Sept 30, 2024. The petitioner (student) informed the college that she did not intend to continue MDS course and requested for a refund of fees, paid on Sept 10, 2024,” the judge noted, observing the student was well within her rights to get a refund.