GODA RAGHURAM, J.

Heard Sri Rajendra Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri K. Durga Prasad; Sri Kurian George Kannanthanam - learned senior counsel instructed by Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy; Sri P. Venugopal; and Sri S. Sriram for Sri Sricharan Telaprolu and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy – learned counsel for the several petitioners; Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy the Additional Advocate-General instructed by the learned G.P. for Higher Education for the State Government; Sri C. Sudesh Anand for the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) and the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education; Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy – standing counsel for JNTU; Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee – standing counsel for the Osmania University; and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud – the Asst. Solicitor General for India, for the respondents.

2. The fee structure notifications issued by the State, for private unaided educational institutions (whether minority or non-minority), imparting professional education, for the academic years 20102011 to 2012-2013 are challenged in this batch of Writ Petitions. The reliefs sought in the several writ petitions are distinctly structured though the common and substantive grievance is regards the fee structure notified by the State (on recommendations of the AFRC), for the several professional courses offered by private unaided educational institutions. Reliefs sought in some of the writ petitions were also amended from time to time on applications filed in those writ petitions.

3. In W.P. Nos.20535 & 20543 of 2010, validity of the Constitution [Ninety-third Amendment] Act, 2005 – amending Article 15 by addition of Clause-5 [enabling the State to make a special provision by law for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes relating to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or un aided by the State, other than minority educational institutions referred to in Article 30(1)] was challenged. We, therefore, issued notice on 27-04-2011 to the learned Attorney General for India to respond on behalf of the Union to this challenge. Subsequently, however, Sri Rajendra Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel appearing in these writ petitions submitted that the challenge to the Ninety-third Amendment to the Constitution does not survive for adjudication before this Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association vs. Union of India (2011 TLPRE-0-567). Accordingly, we re-opened the hearing to hear these two writ petitions along with the other cases in this batch of writ petitions on the other grounds of challenge, on 09-09-2011. Thereafter, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, counsel in W.P.No.16547 of 2010 represented that an application filed for amendment of the reliefs; to challenge the rules issues in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 28-07-2011, and the notifications issued in G.O.Ms.No.85 & 86, dated 02-08-2011 and 04-08-2011, respectively; be considered. Accordingly, the batch was again heard on 16-09-2011 to consider the amendment application and to hear oral arguments thereon. The amendment to the reliefs, sought in W.P.No.16547 of 2010 (in W.P.M.P.No.28989 of 2011) was ordered on 16-09-2011 and the parties were heard.

4. Thus, in the dynamic circumstances adverted to briefly above, the hearing in this batch of writ petitions was episodic and continual. Eventually, the batch was reserved for judgment on 16-09-2011.

[A]Statutory Provisions Challenged :

(i) Validity of Section - 7 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (the ‘Capitation Fee Act’);

(ii) Rule-8 of the A.P. Unaided Non-minority professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into under-graduate professional courses through common entrance) Rules-2006, issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 10-05-2006, (G.O.Ms.No.53 Rules), as amended in G.O.Ms. No.113, d