' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 12-1-2004 passed by respondent No,1, through which the request of the petitioner for the refund of the admission fee has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application in the office of respondent No,3 for the admission of B.Sc. Engineering First Professional Class for the Sessions 2003-2007. The petitioner was advised to deposit Rs,52,150 before 10-9-2003 vide letter dated 30-8-2003. In response to the said letter the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs,52,150. Then respondent No,3 addressed a letter to the petitioner on 7-11-2003 and informed the decision of the Institute of Engineering and Technology offering few seats in the disciplines of Chemical Engineering/Electronics Engineering/Computer System Engineering on payment of self-finance fee of Rs,3,00,000 at the time of admission. The petitioner was told that if he was interested to get admission on self-finance seat then he was obliged to deposit Draft/Pay Order for Rs,3,00,000 in addition to the dues already deposited by him and he was also asked to deposit the said amount before 17-11-2003. Another letter was also issued to the petitioner by respondent No,3 accepting his admission under the Self-Finance Scheme and he was informed that he was selected in the discipline of Electronics Engineering on self-finance seats and he was advised to join the class work on 1-12-2003. He was also directed to get verified his credential by appearing before Syed Nasir Abbas Abdi. The petitioner through letter issued on 1-12-2003 informed the respondent that he had some problem in the family due to bad health of his father and he could not proceed his education outside Bahawalpur being eldest son, hence his dues may be refunded. In reply to the said letter the petitioner was asked to send the original receipts of the dues submitted by him vide letter dated 4-12-2003 and then through letter dated 12-1-2004, the refund of the dues has been refused by the respondent. Hence this writ petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the final steps about admission were not completed as the documents which were to be verified had not yet been verified by respondent No,3 and the agreement could not be performed hence, the respondents are bound to pay the said amount of Rs,3,00,000 back to the petitioner as the said huge amount cannot be confiscated by them in the manner and the order is illegal and unlawful. It is also contended that under the Prospectus no Scheme was announced on Self-Finance basis and the paragraph relied upon by the respondents for the refund of the deposited fee is not applicable to the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondents have mis-interpreted the conditions of the Prospectus. It is further contended that the University was not recognized by the Engineering Council and had posed the same through. Illegal and unlawful manner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable as the respondents are a company and writ petition against the company under Article 199(5) of the Constitution is not maintainable as they are not State functionaries. It is also contended that since the petitioner after the deposit of the admission fee changed his mind and went to Karachi where he got admission in other institution and is studying there, the petitioner cannot claim the refund of the said amount without fault of the respondents as the petitioner was selected and other candidates were refused admission. It is also contended that under the Prospectus the admission could be granted in the subjects through other means i.e, Self-Finance Scheme. It is also contended that provisions of non-refunding of the amount is applicable to the petitioner and order is legal.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had applied for the admission in B.Sc. Engineering First Professional Class for Session 2003-2007 and submitted the Form. He also deposited the fee amounting to Rs,52,150. However, he could not be selected on merits and was offered seat under the Self-Finance Scheme, which was accepted by him and he deposited Rs,3,00,000 in order to get admission under the said Scheme. The only formality was left that the documents were to be verified otherwise the admission of the petitioner was final and it had become a past and closed transaction. However, the petitioner did not join the class and wrote letter on 1-12-2003 for withdrawal of the amount on the ground that due to bad health of his father he could not leave Bahawalpur. But subsequently as it transpired from Annex-I that the petitioner got admission in Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology and is studying there. Hence the stand taken by him for the refund of the amount on 1-12-2003 was not consistent as he left Bahawalpur and started his studies at Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology at Karachi. As such both the grounds taken by the petitioner for the refund of the amount have been found false.
6. Even otherwise if the petitioner had changed his mind after the deposit of the amount of Rs,3,00,000 on account of admission under Self-Finance Scheme and did not join the classes for his personal reasons of any kind, the respondents cannot be held at fault and penalized for the refund of dues as after acceptance of admission on self-finance scheme, the matter became a past and closed chapter. Moreover in the Prospectus it has been duly mentioned that the said amount will not be refunded.
' The petitioner submitted the Form after obtaining the Prospectus and was bound by the terms and conditions thereof. According to condition No,5, dues deposited/adjusted upon confirmation of Admission shall not be refunded and thus the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seats under the Self-Finance Scheme were not mentioned in the Prospectus is of no avail for the refund of dues as the petitioner himself deposited the Form and fee under the said Scheme being offered by the respondents and was given the admission under the Self-Finance Scheme. The petitioner cannot be benefited of his own misdeeds as he himself was responsible for not joining the classes and the respondents were not at fault. Moreover, at this belated stage the amount cannot be refunded on the ground that the respondent-University was not recognized by the Pakistan Engineering Council which on the one hand is a factual controversy and on the other it is not claim of the petitioner that due to this reason he could not continue his classes.
8. For the foregoing reasons this petition has no merit and is dismissed.