Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DILIP B. BHOSALE & P. NAVEEN RAO, JJ.
CMR College of Engineering & Technology, Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent C. Gopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Hyderabad), Rep. by its Registrar & Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 268 of 2016
Decided On : 28-07-2016
Education and University – Collection of fees – Seeking to collect common services fee from them in relation to the students pursuing Undergraduate and Postgraduate Engineering Courses in Private Unaided Institutions in the State of Telangana for block period – Also challenged action of State in not excluding the Private Autonomous Colleges from payment of common services fee to University as fixed under various Government Orders – Prayed for consequential direction to University not to collect fees towards common services – For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in W.P. who are appellants in these appeals, shall be hereinafter referred to as appellant-colleges or colleges – Learned Advocate General for State of Telangana initially raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the three appeals arising from the order passed in Review petition, on ground that original order passed in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P. was not challenged – In support, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bussa Overseas Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2016) 4 SCC 696 – He raised the objection when it was not revealed that the appellant-colleges have also filed separate writ appeals against the order dated 3.7.2015, passed in the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by them, along with applications for condonation of delay – Held, in short, he submitted that in any case University is not entitled to receive said amount since all services including common services, which University was rendering earlier, are being rendered by the colleges, and therefore, they are entitled to retain this amount and if the amount is remitted to University that would amount to unjust enrichment – For reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, this submission deserves to be rejected outright – That apart, it is now well-settled and accepted proposition of law that University is entitled to generate reasonable surplus for development of education and its expansion – As observed by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education (supra) that while fixing the fee structure it should be taken into consideration, inter-alia, the salary or remuneration paid to the members of the faculty, other staff, investments made by the University, infrastructure provided and plan for future development of the University as also its expansion. Future planning or improvement of facilities, the Supreme Court stated, may be provided for – These factors undoubtedly are required to be taken care of by the University while fixing and demanding fees from the students through their colleges or examination authority – It is true that University cannot charge anything unreasonable under the guise of surplus, indirectly or systematically and then claim that they are established for educational purpose and not for the purposes of profits – From the facts of the present case, amount to be remitted to University towards common services, in our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as unreasonable and even if it is assumed that the entire amount of Rs.1,500/- cannot be accounted by University that by itself would not amount to unreasonable enrichment – Appeals are dismissed. (Paras 27 and 28)
DILIP B. BHOSALE, J.
1. These six writ appeals arise from two orders dated 3.7.2015 passed in W.P. No. 7873 of 2015 and batch, and dated 17.3.2016 passed in WPMP No. 5539 of 2016 in W.P. No. 7873 of 2015, seeking review of the order dated 3.7.2015. The first three appeals are against the order dated 3.7.2015, whereas the remaining three appeals are against the order dated 17.3.2016.
2. W.P. No. 7873 of 2015 was filed by the appellants asking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (for short, the University) in seeking to collect common services fee from them in relation to the students pursuing Undergraduate and Postgraduate Engineering Courses in Private Unaided Institutions in the State of Telangana for the block period 2013-14 to 2015-16. They also challenged the action of the State in not excluding the Private Autonomous Colleges from payment of common services fee to the University as fixed under various Government Orders. The appellants further prayed for a consequential direction to the University not to collect fees towards common services.
3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in W.P. No. 7873 of 2015, who are appellants in these appeals, shall be hereinafter referred to as the appellant-colleges or colleges.
4. Learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana initially raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the three appeals arising from the order dated 17.3.2016, passed in Review petition, on the ground that original order dated 3.7.2015 passed in a batch of writ petitions, including W.P. No. 7873 of 2015, was not challenged. In support, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bussa Overseas Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2016) 4 SCC 696. He raised the objection when it was not revealed that the appellant-colleges have also filed separate writ appeals against the order dated 3.7.2015, passed in the batch of writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by them, along with applications for condonation of delay. Learned Advocate General, after having come to know, did not press the preliminary objection. We, therefore, proceeded to hear all learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case.
5. The appellant-colleges were established for the purpose of promoting and developing technical/higher education in the State. In January, 2014, they were conferred autonomous status by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The autonomous status is valid till the end of academic year 2019-20.
5.1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh (for short, the Government) issued three G.Os. namely G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 6.7.2013; G.O.Ms. No. 66, dated 30.7.2013 and G.O.Ms. No. 75, dated 16.8.2013 providing fee structure for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Engineering, MBA and MCA Courses respectively in Private Unaided Institutes in the State for the academic years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The G.Os. were issued on the basis of the recommendations made by the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for short, 'AFRC'), that was constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'Rules, 2006'). It is not in dispute that the appellant-colleges were granted an opportunity of being heard by AFRC before recommending the fee structure. On the basis of the recommendations, the aforementioned G.Os. were issued for the block period 2013-14 to 2015-16. Accordingly, the appellant-colleges collected fees from its students for the academic year 2013-14 and remitted the same to the University without demur.
5.2 By G.O.Ms. No. 57, the Government notified the fee and special fee structure for Undergraduate Engineering Courses, whereas G.O.Ms. No. 66 notified the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
