IMPORTANT POINTS
Determination of fee structure cannot be termed arbitrary merely because it was disagreed by an institution.
Court cannot takeover functions of expert statutory body unless for cogent reasons and in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This court, in Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697, directed the establishment in each State, of a Committee to regulate the fee structure in unaided minority and non-minority educational institutions. The Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) were framed under Section 15 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Under Rule 4(v), the Committee is required to communicate the fee structure determined by it to the State Government for notification. The fee structure so notified, inter alia for the B.E. and B.Tech courses, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, on a challenge made by the respondent institutions did not meet the approval of the learned Single Judge. The matter was remanded to the Committee. On a reconsideration, the Committee granted some escalation, which was again challenged. Opining that the fixation was not proper, the learned Single Judge proceeded to fix the fee structure to his satisfaction. Aggrieved, the State of Telangana and the Fee Regulatory Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before the Division Bench. The parent’s association has also assailed the impugned orders directly before this Court, after having been granted leave to do so. Thus, the appeals.

3. Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Telangana, submitted that the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee constituted under the Rules (hereinafter referred to as “TAFRC”) has framed detailed guidelines under which the private unaided professional institutions were required to submit fee proposals for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19. The guidelines lay down an elaborate procedure with regard to the requisite information required to be submitted by an institution in support of the proposal, the factors to be considered by the TAFRC, the manner of consideration in arriving at a balanced fee structure, keeping in mind the interest of the students as also the educational institutions, to ensure that there was no profiteering or capitation fee. The Committee is headed by a retired High Court Judge, and comprises various domain experts from different fields with necessary expertise. The recommendations of the TAFRC with regard to the fee structure therefore ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review by substituting its own view over that of the TAFRC to redetermine the proper fee structure. The fee structure for the threeyear block period vide GOM No.21 dated 04.07.2016 was initially determined by the TAFRC at Rs. 86,000/and Rs. 91,000/for the respondent institutions, which after remand by the High Court was uniformly redetermined at Rs.97,000/per student on 04.02.2017. The TAFRC did not act arbitrarily by declining to take into consideration relevant materials, or relied on extraneous materials collected behind the back of the respondent institutions. The TAFRC acted in consultation with the respondent institutions, including seeking clarifications from them. The High Court did not find that the TAFRC had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the guidelines or in violation of any basic principles of accounting and procedures. The fact that after remand the TAFRC may have adopted a different methodology to determine 10% inflation and 15% furtherance for the entire block period cannot be construed as arbitrariness. Merely because in the opinion of the High Court another view could also have been taken, cannot justify the usurpation of the jurisdiction