SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 1095

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN, S.C. AGRAWAL, S. MOHAN, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others etc. etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and others etc. etc., Respondents.
Writ Petn. (C) No. 317 of 1993 With W.P. (C) Nos. 442, 327, 350, 613, 463, 627, 597, 536, 598, 626, 444, 417, 523, 474, 485, 484, 355, 525, 469 and 392 of 1993; I.A. Nos.2 and 3 In S.L.P. (C) No. 14437 of 1993, W.P. (C) Nos. 629, 399, 571, 531, 603, of 1993; I.A. Nos. 3, 4-8 of 1993; In C.A. No.927 of 1993, W.P. (C) Nos. 702, 585, 628, 663, 284, 555, 343, 596, 660, 407 and 482 of 1993 and Writ Petn. (Civil) Nos. 536 with 598 of 1993, D/-7-10-1993 and 12-10-1993.
AND
Mar Athanasius College, Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Deepankar Gupta, ASG., Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. R.K. Garg Mr. Sushil Kumar, Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Mr. Anil B. Dewan, 15 Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Mr. s. Sivasubramaniam, Mr. Y.H. Muchhala, Mr. K. Parasaran, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Santosh Hegde, Mr. Joseph Vallaputty, Mr. F.S. Nariman, Mr. N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocates, Mr. B.V. Acharya, Attorney General Dr. Roxna, Mr. H.L. Tikku, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Ms. Alapana Poddar, Mr. Ravi Wadhwani, Mr. Ashok Grover, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. M.D. Adkar, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Mr. B.K. Misra, Mr. R. Jaganatha Goulay, Mr. T.C. Sharma, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. U. Sagar, Mr. P. Kohli, Mr. R. Mohan, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Dr. P.B. Rao, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. P.N. Ramalingan, Mr. V. Balaji, Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. L.R. Singh, Mr. Vikash Singh, Mr. Vijay Chandra, Mr. Yunus Malik, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Mr. K.V. Mohan, Mr. S. Selvarathanam, Mr. M. Veerappa, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Kh. Nobin Singh, Mr. S.Sasiprabhu, Mr. A. Jayaram, Mr. M.K. Dua, Mr. P.R. Seetharaman, Mr. Pawan, Mr. Rathin Das, Mr. M.A. Firoz, Mr. E.M.S. Anam, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Arun K. Sharma and Mr. B.K. Prasad, for the appearing parties.

Advocates:
ASHOK GROVER, B.V.ACHARYA, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, E.M.S.ANAM, F.S.NARIMAN, HARISH N.SLAVE, JOSEPH VELLAPALLY, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.R.R.PILLAI, K.V.MOHAN, KIRAN JETHANAND, L.M.Bhat, M.A.Firoz, M.K.SASIDHARAN, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, P.DSOUZA, R.F.NARIMAN, R.P.VADHVANI, RAMA JOISE, S.N.BHATT, S.R.Bhatt, SUSHIL JAIN, Y.RAMACHANDRA

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 30 - Private professional colleges - Fee structure - Learned Solicitor-General appearing for Union of India submitted that in pursuance of judgment in Unnikrishnan, Central Government, Medical Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education and other similar bodies have promptly initiated exercise for determining fee structure - He placed before Court proceedings of the meeting of sub-committee of the Medical Council of India held and affidavit filed on behalf of All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.) - Operative portion of the minutes of the sub-committees of I.M.C - Engineering colleges are concerned, learned Solicitor-General pointed out that though A.I.C.T.E. has not taken any decision so far, it will, soon enough, issue regulations prescribing a reasonable and non-disparate fee structure for different States, effective from academic year - He pointed out that while fee fixed for payment seats , it is and that in other States a figure in between these two figures has been specified for payment seats - He submitted that for this year, Court may fix a 16 tentative fee to be adjusted in accordance with final fixation by Central Government and/or appropriate council/authority – Held, It is brought to Court notice that admissions to fifty per cent of seats in these two institutions have been finalised by conducting an objective test through an independent agency situated outside Kerala, on basis of this Courts order dated though admissions have not yet been made formally - In circumstances Court direct that these colleges shall be governed by order dated subject to condition that entire fees collected by them, whether from free students or from payment students or for that matter N.R.I. or Foreign students, if any, shall be fully made over to the Government of Kerala - In other words arrangement prevailing in previous years in respect of fees collected and expenses of the college shall continue for this year - So far as admission to other 50 per cent seats is concerned, they shall be filled by allottees of Government, as per order dated - However, it is directed that students belonging to relevant minority (which established and is administering college) shall not be admitted exceeding 50 of this years intake and remaining 50 shall be given to non-minority 23 candidates - Admissions to free seats as well as payment seats will be made on basis of merit only - As directed in order dated payment seats (including NRI/ Foreign students) and free seats shall be distributed equally between minority and non-minority students - Deletion of bank guarantee in order dated shall also apply to these institutions as also 15 quota for N.R.I./Foreign students as prescribed in aforesaid order dated - Ordered accordingly.

Judgment

ORDER :- These matters were posted before us on October 4 and 5, 1993 for orders with respect to the fee structure in private professional colleges and for other appropriate orders. We have heard the learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, the learned Advocate-General for Karnataka and counsel for other States. In view of the non-admission of students to the private professional colleges even by now (first week of October) we called upon the counsel for the Union, the States and the private parties to tell us the way in which the present impasse can be resolved. We pointed out to the counsel that the refusal of the managements of the private professional colleges or, for that matter, their demand that they should be permitted to admit 50 of the students of their own choice cannot be and shall not be conceded. We made it clear that in case of the failure of the parties to find a reasonable wayout, this Court would be obliged to adopt coercive measures to enforce its judgment J. P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645 and other orders in that behalf.

2. The learned Solicitor-General appearing for the Union of India submitted that in pursuance of the judgment in Unnikrishnan, the Central Government, Medical Council of India, All India Council for Technical Education and other similar bodies have promptly initiated the exercise for determining the fee structure. He placed before us the proceedings of the meeting of the sub-committee of the Medical Council of India held on April 12, 1993 and the affidavit filed on behalf of the All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.). The operative portion of the minutes of the sub-committees of the I.M.C. reads thus:

"Keeping all the factors into mind, the Committee recommended that the following fee structure may be considered :-

Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per year per student Indian student joining the institutions having their own hospitals.

Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- from the students joining the institutions utilising the facilities of both Government as well as their own hospitals.

Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- from the students joining the institutions utilising the facilities completely as provided by Government hospitals. Fee to be charged from non-resident Indians is $50,000/- for the whole course."

3. So far as the engineering colleges are concerned, the learned Solicitor-General pointed out that though the A.I.C.T.E. has not taken any decision so far, it will, soon enough, issue regulations prescribing a reasonable and non-disparate fee structure for different States, effective from the academic year 1994-95. He pointed out that while the fee fixed for payment seats is Rs. 37,000/- in Madhya Pradesh, it is Rs. 20,000/- in Karnataka and that in other States a figure in between these two figures has been specified for payment seats. He submitted that for this year, this Court may fix a 16 tentative fee to be adjusted in accordance with the final fixation by the Central Government and/or the appropriate council/authority. The learned Solicitor-General assured us that the Central Government is fully committed to the full implementation of the judgment in Unnikrishnan and that any steps taken by this Court for implementation of the said judgment will have the unconditional support of the Union of India.

4. The learned Advocate-General of Karnataka submitted that the Karnataka Government has taken prompt steps for implementing the judgment of this Court in Unnikrishnan, (1993 AIR SCW 863), that the lists of free seats have already been published though lists of payment seats could not yet be communicated for want of certain relevant particulars. He stated that the State Government has also revised the fee structure pursuant to this Courts order dated August 18, 1993. He brought to our notice the present stand of the managements that unless they are permitted to admit 50 of the students of their choice, they will not open the professional














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top