P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard Smt. A. Gayatri Devi, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 29515 of 2016, Sri D. Kasim Saheb, learned counsel for petitioner in WPNo.31699 of 2016, learned counsel Sri Sitaram Chaparla, holding for Sri K. Gani Reddy, counsel for petitioners on record in rest of cases, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent No. 1, and Sri C. Sudesh Anand, learned standing counsel for Admission &Fee Regulatory Committee for respondent No. 2 in all the cases.

2. Petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are running educational institutions imparting Bachelor of Education Course of Study. In these writ petitions, petitioners prayed for declaration of the action of the Telangana State Admission & Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) in not fixing the fee for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 for B.Ed., Course as arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. Sri Seetaram Chaparla contended that the object of Act, 1983 is to prohibit profiteering by the private unaided educational institutions. The Act does not prohibit charging of fee, but only seeks to regulate the fee chargeable by the private unaided educational institutions. The AFRC is a permanent body. Thus, there cannot be a fixed time frame to determine the fee chargeable by private educational institutions and, therefore, AFRC cannot reject the request of petitioners to fix the fee on the ground that they did not respond within the fixed schedule.

3.1. He submitted that in response to the notification dated 23.09.2015, petitioners have registered on the website of AFRC within the time granted by paying requisite fee. Thereafter, proposals seeking fixation of fee was uploaded by the individual institutions as assessed by them. He would further submit that though the petitioners have registered and uploaded the proposals online by paying requisite fee, due to inadvertent mistake they did not press the freeze button after submission of the data online. Having waited for considerable time, petitioners sought to know from the 2nd respondent the reasons for not calling them for personal hearing and requested the 2nd respondent to fix the date for personal hearing. Petitioners were informed that since they have failed to press the freeze button after submission of the data online, petitioners were not being called for personal hearing.

3.2. The denial to charge fee by private educational institutions would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and illegal denial of the right of private educational institutions to charge fee. He further submitted that only reason for denial is irregularity in uploading the applications. Petitioners institutions have not faced any other disqualification and they have valid affiliation subsisting.

3.3. He would submit that private educational institutions are entitled to charge fee from students. They cannot provide free education. What is regulated by the Act and the Rules is amount of fee that can be charged by an institution and not to completely deprive charging of fee. If fee cannot be charged, it will have deleterious effect on the managements of these institutions.

4.1. Sri Sudesh Anand appearing for AFRC submitted that in spite of granting sufficient time, petitioners failed to avail the opportunity and issue of fixation of fee having become final and the academic session already commenced, it is not permissible for the petitioners to claim fixation of fee at this stage.

4.2. By referring to the tabulated statement and particulars of time granted for uploading the relevant data, in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, he would submit that this discloses that 15 writ petitioners have not complied with the requirements.

4.3. According to learned counsel, on elaborate analysis of the legal position and contentions urged on behalf of the Private Unaided Professional Institutions, the Division Bench of this Court in Consortium of Engineering Colleges Managements Association (CECMA) and others v. Government of Andhra Prades