JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- The Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of eliminating the practice of collecting capitation fee for admitting students into educational institutions, enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (the Act). The Act which replaces the Karnataka Ordinance No. 14 of 1983 came into force with effect from July 11, 1983. Purporting to regulate the tuition fee to be charged by the Private Medical Colleges in the State, the Karnataka Government issued a notification dated June 5, 1989 under S. 5(1) of the Act thereby fixing the tuition fee, other fees and deposits to be charged from the students by the Private Medical Colleges in the State. Under the notification the candidates admitted against "Government seats" are to pay Rs, 2,000/- per year as tuition fee. The Karnataka students (other than those admitted against "Government seats") are to be charged tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 25,000 per annum. The third category is of "Indian students from outside Karnataka", from whom tuition fee not exceeding Rs. 60,000/ -per annum is permitted to be charged.

2. Miss Mohini Jain a resident of Meerut was informed by the Management of Sri Siddharatha Medical College, Agalokote, Tumkur in the State of Karnataka that she could be admitted to the MBBS course in the session commencing February/ March, 1991. According to the management she was asked to deposit Rs. 60,000/- as the tuition fee for the first year and furnish a bank guarantee in respect of the fee for the remaining years of the MBBS course. The petitioners father informed the management that it was beyond his means to pay the exhorbitant annual fee of Rs. 60,000/- and as a consequence she was denied admission to the Medical College. Mohini Jain has alleged that the management demanded a further capitation fee of rupees four and a half lakhs but the management has vehemently denied the same.

3. In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India Miss Mohini Jain has challenged the notification of the Karnataka Government permitting the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka to charge exhorbitant tuition fees from the students other than those admitted to the "Government seats".

4. Mr. Santosh Hegde learned counsel appearing for the medical college respondent No. 3 has contended that the students from whom higher tuition fee is charged belong to a different class. According to him those who are admitted to the "Government seats" are meritorious and the remaining non-meritorious. He states that classification of candidates into those who possess merit and those who do not possess merit is a valid classification and as such the college management is within its right to charge more fee from those who do not possess merit. He further states that the object sought to be achieved by the said classification is to collect money to meet the expenses incurred by the college in providing medical education to the students. Mr. C. S. Vaidayanathan, learned counsel appearing for the intervener Karnataka Private Medical Colleges Association has argued that the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka do not receive any financial aid from either the Central or the State Government. According to him the Private Medical Colleges incur about Rs. 5 lakhs per student as expenditure for a 5-years MBBS Course. 40 of the seats in these colleges are set apart as "Government seats" to be filled by the Government. The students selected and admitted against Government seats pay only Rs. 2000 per annum as such the rest of the burden falls on those who are admitted against management quota. He, therefore, contended that the tuition fee is not excessive and as such there is no question of making any profit by the Private Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka. Mr. Hegde and Mr. Vaidayanathan have vehemently contended that in order to run the medical colleges the managements are justified in charging the cap