Sachchidanand Jha, J.

1. As a common dispute is involved in these three cases they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners, who are 87 in number, are students of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Institute). (Many similarly placed students of the Institute have joined hands with the petitioners as intervenors). They have approached this Court seeking direction upon the Institute to deliver their mark-sheet, certificates for the first/second/third/fourth year of the BDS Course sent to the Institute by the Magadh University and the original certificates deposited by them at the time of admission, permit them to complete their internship and on completion thereof issue necessary certificate, and other incidental reliefs. The refusal to issue the mark-sheets etc. is on the ground that the petitioners have not paid their outstanding dues.

3. There appears to be a minor dispute about outstanding hostel charges. Counsel for the parties however, fairly agreed that as this dispute involves ascertainment of facts the same may be left to be investigated by some agency. While on behalf of the petitioners it was suggested that this may be done by the Registrar of the University i.e. Magadh University, on behalf of the Institute it was submitted that as the University has issued forged and fake mark-sheets on extraneous consideration giving rise to a dispute inter se, the verification may be done by some outside agency. I shall deal with this aspect of the case later in this judgment.

4. The heart of the dispute which requires decision by this Court relates to the amount of tuition fee and other fees. It may be mentioned here that in the brochure for the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97, the fee structure comprised of ten items, namely, (i), admission fee, (ii) tuition fee, (iii) Charges of materials used in practicals in clinical classes during teaching programme, (iv) Caution Money, (v) Sessional Examination fees, (vi) Library Charge, (vii) Building development Charge (viii) College Society, (ix) Magazines and Hand books and (x) Games and Sports. In the brochure for 1997-98 a consolidated amount was shown as admission fee including tuition fee and all other charges. It is relevant to mention here that according to the Institute the students are liable to pay the fees every year except admission fee and caution money.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the brochure for the particular academic year contained the particulars of the fees payable by the students on admission. Acting on such representation they took admission, and the Institute therefore cannot charge more in the subsequent years of the course. In any case, having allowed them to continue the course of study- from year to year, the Institute waived the right, if any, to demand higher fee, it is stated that at no point of time the petitioners were informed that they will have to pay higher fees during subsequent years of the course and the impugned action denying them their mark-sheets, certificates etc. at the end of the course or in the midst of it without any notice is arbitrary and illegal. The case of the Institute, in sum and substance, is that the fees indicated in the brochure were meant for the particular academic year. In subsequent years the fees were fixed in accordance with the decision of the Central Government in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation V/s. State of Karnatka. Counsel for the Institute referred to various orders of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundations case on the point of fee structure and the need to generate income, if the Institute has to exist and provide quality education to the students.

6. It is common knowledge that teaching institutions usually come out with a prospectus or brochure- called by whatever name - informing the candidates at large the details of courses