This batch of Writ Petitions is filed by some of the Educational Institutions imparting B.Ed. education and the B.Ed. students, assailing the decision of respondent No.2-The Acharya Nagarjuna University (for short “the University”), to levy and collect “admission/registration/recognition /University Services Fee” from each student on annual basis to be collected by the Institutions and remitted to the latter.

W.P.Nos.13609, 13679, 16594, 16598, 17072, 20197, 20198 and 21430 of 2012 have been filed by the B.Ed. students of various Institutions and the other Writ Petitions have been filed by the Educational Institutions running the B.Ed. course.

In their pleadings, the petitioners have averred that respondent No.2-University has no power or authority to unilaterally fix the impugned fee for being collected from the students. They have averred that the provisions of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short the “1983 Act”) authorized the State Government to regulate tuition fee or any other fee that may be levied and collected by any Educational Institution in respect of each class of students; that the Admissions and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) constituted by the State Government is vested with the power to prescribe fee payable by the students of professional courses offered in private unaided professional Institutions and that therefore the University has no power or authority to fix and collect any fee other than that prescribed by the AFRC. Alternatively, the petitioners averred that even if the University has the power or authority to prescribe the impugned fee, the same can be exercised only by making an ordinance or a statute and that the University has not made any such ordinance or statute for prescribing the fee. The petitioners have placed reliance on the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Adarsha College of Education Vs. The Acharya Nagarjuna University (W.P.No.27195/2007 & Batch, dated 8-2-2010) wherein the learned Judge has set-aside the levy of “development fee and infrastructure fee” on the ground that the University has not made any ordinance or statute for levy of such fee.

Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Registrar of the University in some of these cases wherein the levy of the impugned fee is sought to be supported. It is inter alia pleaded that in exercise of its power under clause (20) of Section 5 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short "the 1991 Act"), the University has laid down the fee to be collected by itself, the fee to be collected by the individual Institutions and the fee to be deposited as caution deposit, refundable after the course under various heads; that since the year 2005, the University has not revised the fee; that in the year 2010, a Committee was constituted by it to go into the various heads of fee to be charged for the various services it extends to the students and the Institutions concerned and to recommend the revised rates of fee and that the Committee so constituted submitted its report dated 9-2-2010 to the University which in turn has placed the same before its Executive Council. It is further pleaded that meanwhile, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.63 and 64, Higher Education (EC.2) Department, dated 16-7-2009 prescribing Special Fee for the academic year 2009-10 for five courses; that whenever the Government issues orders for collection of fee for the services provided by the University, the same is being adopted and in respect of other courses such as B.Ed. course, the University itself is prescribing the fee. The University sought to support its decision both under Sections 5(20) and 19(12) and (13) of the 1991 Act besides paragraph-2 of G.O.Ms.Nos.63 and 64, dated 16-7-2009.

It is further averred that while the said G.Os. have prescribed Rs.2500/-to be collected from each student of the five courses and remitted to the University concerned, res