JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

Leave granted.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in Writ Petition Nos. 33656/2018 and 8210/2019 the medical college/institution has preferred the present appeals.

2. Pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 537, the State of Andhra Pradesh framed Rules called the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2006). Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006 is with respect to the fee fixation. Following the report of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the AFRC), the State Government issued G.O. dated 18.06.2011 fixing and enhancing the fee for the academic years 2011-12 to 2013-14. However, for the subsequent years, more particularly, for the block years 2017 to 2020 (period in question) without waiting for the report from the AFRC and on the representations made by the private medical colleges, the State Government issued G.O. dated 06.09.2017 and enhanced the tuition fee payable by the MBBS students. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under the said G.O. the State Government enhanced the tuition fee at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 24 lakhs per annum i.e. almost seven times the tuition fee notified for the previous block period. The G.O. dated 06.09.2017 was the subject matter of writ petitions before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has set aside the G.O. dated 06.09.2017 by observing and holding that considering the provisions of the Rules, 2006 the fee cannot be enhanced/fixed without the recommendations/report of the AFRC. Therefore, the High Court by the impugned common judgment and order has held that the recovery of enhanced tuition fee by the respective private medical colleges is bad in law. Consequently, the High Court has set aside the G.O. dated 06.09.2017 to the extent of enhancement of fee. The High Court has also directed that if any fee already fixed by the Government vide G.O. dated 06.09.2017 dehors the G.O. dated 18.06.2011, the same shall be refunded by the colleges to the students after adjusting the amounts payable under G.O. dated 18.06.2011.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the respective medical college/institution qua who now is required to refund the amount collected pursuant to G.O. dated 06.09.2017 has preferred the present appeals.

3. Having heard Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Shri Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.P. Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee and on considering the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the G.O. dated 06.09.2017 enhancing the tuition fee for the block years 2017-2020. Even Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - medical college has fairly conceded that the tuition fee could not have been enhanced by the State Government unilaterally and without report/recommendations by the AFRC under the provisions of the Rules, 2006.

3.1 Even otherwise considering the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2006 the fixation could have been only on the recommendations/report by the AFRC and under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006 a duty is cast upon the AFRC to recommend the fee fixation. Under the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2006, the AFRC while fixing the fee is require