Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, RAMESH RANGANATHAN, JJ.
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Education Department (Higher Education), Secretariat, Hyderabad and another - Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Vasavi Academy of Education & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 798 & 801 of 2017
Decided On : 24-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Additional Advocate General (Telangana)
For the Respondents: Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, Sri Chetluru Srinivas
Headnote:
Education Law – Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 – Section 7 – Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committees (for professional courses offered in private Un-Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 – Rules 2(b) and 2(h) – Letters Patent Appeal- Clause 15 – Institution – Admission – Tuition Fees – Fixation of Fees – W.P. was filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.A. seeking to declare action of Telangana Admissions and Fee Regulatory Committee-TAFRC in recommending Rs.97,000/- per annum as tuition fee, for B.Tech course offered in 2nd respondent-Institution, for the block period, in its meeting held; and consequential G.O.Ms – Higher Education notifying the fees as Rs.97,000/- per annum instead of Rs.1,54,000/- as claimed by respondents 1 to 3, as without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal – Held, Supreme Court holding that since the provisions of the Act stipulate that a fee structure is to be fixed for a three year block period, and the fee so fixed would be applicable to a student admitted to the professional educational college in those academic years, till he completed his professional course, fee structure could not be changed mid-way during block period after Fee Regulatory Committee had fixed fee structure for three year block period – Unlike in Kalol Institute of Management, dispute, in present case, relates to the fixation of fees by the TAFRC for entire block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, and not for the second or third year of block period of three years – Contention that the students cannot be asked to pay the fees, as determined by the Learned Single Judge in order under appeal, does not therefore merit acceptance – High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, for a sum of Rs.20,000/- per student; bank guarantees were kept alive during the pendency of appeals; and respondents-writ petitioners also furnish a detailed statement, of the fees received by them and the bank guarantees furnished by them, to the appellants within ten days of the bank guarantees being furnished by them to the Registrar (Judicial); and failure on part of respondent-writ petitioners to do so, would enable appellants to take action against them in accordance with law – Since both appeals in W.A. preferred against orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. are being dismissed, and orders under appeal are affirmed by order now passed by us, Registrar (Judicial) shall return the bank guarantees, furnished by the respondent-writ-petitioners, to them under due acknowledgment – Appeals are dismissed.
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
These two appeals are preferred by the State of Telangana, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.7744 of 2017 and 7596 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017.
2. W.P. No.7744 of 2017 was filed by respondents 1 to 3 in W.A. No.801 of 2017 seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the Telangana Admissions and Fee Regulatory Committee (hereinafter called the TAFRC), in recommending Rs.97,000/- per annum as the tuition fee, for the B.Tech course offered in the 2nd respondent-Institution, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, in its meeting held on 06.01.2017; and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.3 Higher Education dated 04.02.2017 notifying the fees as Rs.97,000/- per annum instead of Rs.1,54,000/- as claimed by respondents 1 to 3, as without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction was sought to declare that the 2nd respondent-Institution was entitled to charge and collect Rs.1,54,000/- per annum as fees from its students.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.798 of 2017 had filed W.P.No.7596 of 2017 seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the TAFRC, in recommending Rs.97,000/- per annum as the tuition fee for the B.Tech course in the 2nd respondent-Institution for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, in its meeting held on 06.01.2017; and the consequential G.O.Ms.No.3 Higher Education (TE/A2) Department dated 04.02.2017 notifying the fees as Rs.97,000/- per annum instead of Rs.1,60,000/- as claimed by the respondent-writ petitioners, as without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal. A consequential direction was sought to declare that the respondent-College is entitled to charge and collect Rs.1,60,000/- per annum as fees from its students.
4. The TAFRC had initially fixed Rs.91,000/- as the tuition fee, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, which was notified by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.21 Higher Education Department, dated 04.07.2016, as against Rs.1,54,000/- per annum which the respondent-College, in W.A. No.801 of 2017, had sought to be determined as the tuition fees. On the jurisdiction of this Court being invoked by respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.801 of 2017, the Learned Single Judge, in his order in W.P.No.22186 of 2016 dated 14.11.2016, observed that, as held in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 the decision of the TAFRC was a quasi-judicial decision amenable to judicial review; and the TAFRC had exceeded its powers by unduly interfering in the administrative and financial matters of un-aided private professional institutions. The order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22186 of 2016 was subjected to challenge by the TAFRC in W.A.No.224 of 2017. Though they sought interim suspension of the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.A.M.P.No.478 of 2017 in W.A.No.224 of 2017, a Division Bench of this Court, while admitting W.A.No.224 of 2017, dismissed WAMP No.478 of 2017, observing that compliance with the order in the Writ Petition by the TAFRC would be subject to the result of the Writ Appeal.
5. Likewise, respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.978 of 2017 filed W.P.No.22037 of 2016 aggrieved by the recommendation of the TAFRC dated 14.11.2016 fixing the tuition fee, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19, as Rs.86,000/- per annum which was notified by the Government of Telangana, in G.O.Ms.No.21 Higher Education (TE/A2) Department dated 04.07.2016, instead of the fee of Rs.1,60,000/- per annum as sought by the respondent-writ petitioners. In his order, in W.P.No.22037 of 2016 dated 14.11.2016, the Learned Single Judge considered the correctness of the reasons furnished by the TAFRC for fixing Rs.86,000/- as the tuition fee, and came to a similar conclusion as in W.P.No.22186 of 2016 dated 14.11.2016. Similar directions were issued by the Learned Single Judge, in his order in W.P. No. 22037 of 2016, as was pas
