2021 Supreme(AP) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Al-Momin College of Education - Appellant
Versus
Registrar, Acharya Nagarjuna University - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18703 of 2020
Decided On : 18-06-2021

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - A.P. Universities Act, 1991 - Section 5(20), 19(37), 19(12), 53, 54 - Capitation Fee Act, 1983 - Section 2(b) - Capitation fee - Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Questioning action of respondents/universities in demanding petitioners/institutions for payment of university service fee in addition to fee fixed - Provisions of A.P. Universities Act, 1991 and Ordinance Rules made thereunder and finality of determination and consequential proceedings of Vice-Chancellor prescribing service fee, it is binding on all colleges including autonomous colleges even after acquiring autonomous status to remit common services fee collected by them - Whether petitioners have locus standi to question action of respondents/Universities in collection of service fee, etc., in addition to fee fixed by HERMC - Whether petitioners pleaded and proved that institutions are vested with any legal right, its infringement or invasion or threatened infringement or invasion - Whether collection of service fee by way of recognition/revaluation by university is justified, as recommended by HERMC to government and notified by government in various government orders. If not, whether action of respondent No. 1 be declared as illegal and arbitrary - Whether writ petitions are maintainable without impleading State HERMC and State which passed government orders based on recommendations of HERMC, without claiming any relief to declare various government orders – Held, in absence of pleadings, it is difficult for Court to hold that petitioners legal right, either statutory or constitutional is infringed or invaded by act of first respondent in charging service fee - Petitioners failed to establish existence of any legally enforceable right, its infringement or invasion by University, petitioners have no locus to claim relief of writ of mandamus against respondents/Universities - Petitioners/educational institutions are only intermediaries who are collecting fee from students who is under obligation to remit same to concerned Universities and question of infringement or invasion of right of petitioners either under constitution or under any statute does not arise, petitioners are disentitled to claim writ of mandamus, as claimed in these writ petitions - University is only claiming payment of fee collected by colleges/educational institutions in terms of recommendation made by HERMC and notified by State Government - When petitioners are questioning authority of University to collect such fee, authority who made recommendation and notified fee are proper and necessary parties to writ petitions, in whose absence, lis before this Court cannot be adjudicated effectively and completely and their presence cannot be dispensed with - Writ petitions dismissed.