IMPORTANT POINT
Educational institutions must remit collected University Common Services Fees to the university as per statutory guidelines, and lack standing to challenge such demands.

ORDER :

All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners, but the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.22528 of 2023 as leading petition.

2) W.P. No.22528 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…. to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent Registrar in issuing the Circular dated 20.04.2023 whereby and whereunder a demand is made to remit a sum of Rs.1,80,52,808/- towards University Common Services Fee (UCSF) for the academic years 2014-22 without any legal sanction or without disclosing any statutory Rule for making such a demand as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India besides being in contravention of the Jawaharlal Technological University Act, 2008 and consequently set aside the impugned circular dated 20.04.2023 and issue....”

3) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an institution offering Engineering Courses under various streams to the students of Krishna District and surrounding Districts of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner institution was established decades back and affiliated to respondent No.2 University. Respondent No.2 University issued a circular making unreasonable demand to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,52,808/- towards the University Common Services Fee (for short “UCSF”) for the academic year 2023-24, without any statutory power and there is no reference to the University Grants Commission Rules for making such unreasonable demand. In the year 2006, the Government had constituted the “Annual Fee Regulatory Committee (for short “AFRC”)” vide G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 24.06.2016 to determine the tuition fee to be charged by the private engineering colleges in the State. In terms of the above said G.O., a sum of Rs.1,850/- per student per annum was fixed as University Common Service Fee, which is to be paid to respondent No.2 university. The said G.O. was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rules 8 and 9 of the University Rules 2011, however, these Rules 8 and 9 do not speak about the Services Fee, which is now sought to be levied through the impugned circular. Later, AFRC was abolished and in its place, the Government established respondent No.4 – Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission (for short “APHERMC”) through Act 20 of 2019. The APHERMC exercising its power determined the fee structure through notification by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 24.03.2020, whereby the University Common Services Fee is fixed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8. Even, Rule 8 does not speak of any University Common Services Fee, which is now being demanded through the impugned circular.

4) It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned circular is not based on either any rule or the statute. Under the guise of impugned circular, respondent No.2 forwarded the list of colleges to respondent No.5 without including the name of the petitioner college, thereby disabling the petitioner institution to take part in the online counseling scheduled from 03.08.2023. Due to the impugned circular, not only the petitioner institution, the meritorious students would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Right to occupation is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and such precious right cannot be taken away by the respondent authorities by issuing the impugned circular making unreasonable demand. Challenging the circular dated 20.04.2023 issued by respondent No.2 demanding the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,80,52,808/- towards UCSF, the present writ petition has been filed.

5) Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in “Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karn