The petitioners are Colleges of Education, affiliated to Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District (for short the University). They feel aggrieved by the demand made by the University, for payment of development fee and infrastructure fee. The University issued individual notices to the petitioners, insisting on payment of the fee, under different heads, viz., affiliation fee of Rs.40,00/-, for an institution, with an intake of 100students, infrastructure fee of Rs.1,500/-, per each student, and development fee of Rs.2,500/-in respect of each student, admitted under the management quota. The petitioners contend that the payment of fee, referred to above, excluding the one, for affiliation fee, is contrary to law, and not supported by the relevant provisions.

2. On behalf of the University, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the University has provided extensive infrastructure for regulating the courses and conducting examinations; and to meet the expenditure, the levy of fee has become necessary. According to them, the petitioners have collected the fee, referred to above, from the students, and they cannot raise any objection for remittance. of the amount to the University.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the affairs of the University are governed by the provisions of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short the Act), and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made there under. According to them, the University can levy fee, if only it is provided for under the concerned subordinate legislation. It is their specific case that, there is no statute, ordinance or regulation that empowers the University to levy the infrastructure fee or development fee. They deny the allegations that the petitioners have levied any amount from the students towards that fee.

4. Sri A. Satya Prasad learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the University. He submits that it is the prerogative of the University to levy fee, to meet the expenditure for the services rendered by it, to the institutions. Learned counsel contends that the University has provided extensive infrastructure, for the benefit of the institutions and the students, and levy of fee, to meet the expenditure, has become necessary. He further contends that the development fee is collected from such of the students, who have been admitted against management quota, almost as a compensatory measure. According to him, the levy of development fee cannot be found fault with, when institutions themselves are collecting substantial amounts from the students.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that even if there is no legal basis for demand of the amounts, referred to above, the petitioners must remit the amount, in case they have collected the amounts from the students in the name of the fee.

6. The petitioners are Colleges of Education, affiliated to Nagarjuna University. Since the course is framed, examinations are conducted, and degrees are conferred by the University, it is entitled to collect fee of different type. While in certain cases, the fee is to be paid by the students, directly, in others, it is to be paid by the Institutions.

7. The University is governed by the Act, which applies, generally, to many Universities in the State. Section 5 of the Act enlists the powers and functions of the University. Clause 20 deals with the power to fix and demand the fees. It reads as under:

"Sec.5. Powers, functions and objects of the Universities: - Every University established under this Act shall have the following powers, functions and objects, namely:-

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(20) to fix fees and to demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be prescribed

xxx"

8. The word prescribed is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, as "prescribed by statutes, Ordinances or Regulations. A combined reading of Sections 5(20) and 2(14) makes it clear that a University can fix and demand fee, only when