JUDGMENT :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. Since these two writ petitions share the common grievance, this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of these two matters by way of this common order.

2. These writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, call in question the order of the State Government, vide G.O. Ms. No. 149, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 6.9.2017. By way of the said order, the State Government, on the representations made by the private medical colleges, enhanced the tuition fee payable by the MBBS students.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health appearing for the first respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent-Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents, and Sri Vivek Chanra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Medical Council of India, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

4. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners, as advocated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that, in the absence of any report of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (hereinafter called as 'AFRC'), the State Government has no power to enhance the fee payable by the students and the said action is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 and the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006. In support of the said contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment, dated 23.4.2019, rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No. 29938 of 2018.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the private medical colleges, while resisting the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contend that there is no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order and, in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable for any judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nor the petitioners are entitled for any relief. In elaboration, they further contend that, obviously keeping in view the increase in the expenditure, which the colleges incur towards the pay and allowance of the teaching and non-teaching staff, and other expenditure that the colleges incur towards infrastructure, the State Government issued the impugned order, enhancing the fee structure, and as such, the same cannot be faulted.

6. It is significant to note that, earlier, followed by the report of the AFRC, the State Government notified the fee structure for the period 2011-2014.

7. In order to consider the above said rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of law. The State Government, pursuant to the law declared by the Honourable Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3226, framed the Rules called the Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-Aided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 and notified the same vide G.O. Ms. No. 6, Higher Education (EC-2) Department, dated 8.2.2007. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the constitution, composition, disqualification and functions of the Admission Fee Regulatory Committee. According to the said Rule, the Committee shall consist of the Chairman, who should be a retired Judge of th