SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, NINALA JAYASURYA, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education (C.EA2) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. - Appellant
Versus
Sri Sai Baba National Degree College (Autonomous), Rep. by its Correspondent, Pullalarevu Lakshminarayana Reddy, and others - Respondents
W.A.No.306 of 2021, W.A.No.307 of 2021
Decided on : 07-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, GP for Higher Education, for Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent: Vedula Venkata Ramana, Sr.Adv. Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli,
Mr. C. Sudesh Anand, Mr. M. Karibasaiah, Ms. S. Parineetha

Point of law: The proviso to Rule 8(3) provides that the Commission shall give the Institution an opportunity of being heard before fixing any fee or fees.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Section 7 - Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 - Rule 8 - Pleader for Higher Education - Common judgment and order arises out of while arises out - Though a writ appeal being was also preferred by State insofar as is concerned in submission made by senior counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1/writ petitioner-institution in said case was closed down and directions issued by common judgment and order of single Judge were in no way going to ensure to the benefit of said institution this Court had disposed of said writ appeal as infructuous vide judgment and order making it clear that appellant/State would be entitled to argue on merits in respect of other appeals preferred against common judgment and order.

Finding of the court :

Judge had opined that though no categorization is prescribed Rules even if it is taken for sake of convenience that categorization is required to be made it must be preceded by an opportunity to institution before categorization of such institution into a particular category and it is in that context single Judge had directed that an opportunity of hearing must be given to writ petitioners-institutions before their inclusion in a particular category – While court agree with observation of Judge court would further observe that Commission in each and every case where fee structure is proposed by institution and Commission is of opinion that such fee structure cannot be approved must pass a reasoned order for not approving fee structure proposed by institution and proposing a particular fee structure so as to ensure a transparent process.

Result: Appeal Disposed of

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the appellant/State. Also heard Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioners.

2. The common judgment and order dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.1327 of 2021, 2210 of 2021 and 2629 of 2021 is under challenge in the present writ appeals. W.A.No.306 of 2021 arises out of W.P.No.2210 of 2021, while W.A.No.307 of 2021 arises out of W.P.No.2629 of 2021. Though a writ appeal, being W.A.No.332 of 2021, was also preferred by the State insofar as W.P.No.1327 of 2021 is concerned, in view of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 therein that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner-institution in the said case was closed down and the directions issued by the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge were in no way going to enure to the benefit of the said institution, this Court had disposed of the said writ appeal as infructuous, vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2021, making it clear that the appellant/State would be entitled to argue on merits in respect of the other appeals preferred against the common judgment and order.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act of 2019’) to establish Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) to maintain standards of education, regulation of fee, service condition of teachers, safeguard the interests of students and to ensure public spiritedness, equity, excellence, financial stability and probity along with good governance and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of 2019 applies to all Higher Educational Institutions including Medical, Dental, Agriculture, Horticulture and Veterinary Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission, in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act of 2019, consists of, amongst others, a Chairperson, who is a retired Judge of the High Court, who has to be appointed by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2019.

4. In the course of fee regulation, in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Rules, 2019 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2019’) framed under Section 23(1) of the Act of 2019, the Commission had proposed to review and determine the fee structure for UG and PG Degree programmes, UG and PG Law programmes, UG and PG Physical Education programmes in Private Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the block period of 2020-21 to 2022-23. The Commission, in its meetings held on 18.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 29.06.2020 and 16.10.2020, had resolved to fix the fee structure for Under Graduate (UG) Degree courses in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the aforesaid block period. Accordingly, the Member Secretary of the Commission had forwarded the minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 16.10.2020 along with recommendations regarding fee structure, to the Government for issuing necessary Notification.

5. On such recommendations, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.1, Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department, dated 08.01.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (for short, ‘the Act of 1983’), notifying the fee structure for UG Degree Courses in the Private Un-aided Degree Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh as mentioned in the Annexures I, II and III along with Category-wise list of Colleges appended to the G.O., for the block period 2020-21 to 2022-23, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. Relevant p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top