Back
2008 (3) GCD 2323 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel
Parents Association for the Medical/Dental Students and Ors.
Versus
Justice R.J. Shah Fee Committee (Medical) and Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 25954 of 20071—Decided on 19-24/03/2008
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Fee structure — MBBS Course — Recommendation of Fee Committee — As Rs. 2.20 lacks per year onwards — Propriety of — Judicial scrutiny — Scope of — Court considered the recommendation of Fee Committee report and found that the report is for the cost of medical education on the premise that full cost of the hospital which is attached to the college is to be considered for all cost incurred by the Medical College and Hospital — It is not a study undertaken for separating expenses of running a hospital independently and additional cost to be incurred by the hospital for permitting the students to have clinical study in the hospital — The report only speaks that the professional staff salary can be bifurcated between the college and hospital based on MCI’S report for the time spent in the college and the hospital — But it does not speak reverse so far as the students are concerned — Therefore, the impugned report cannot be considered as concluded for attributing of cost of hospital towards the medical education to be borne by the students — The Committee has, therefore, committed the said jurisdictional error in making recommendation of fee structure — Therefore, the impugned decision of the Committee cannot be sustained — However, Court considering the fact that students are already undergoing the study and they may be required to pay the ad hoc amount so as to enable the institution to meet with the expenses for the medical education passed the just and consequential order directing the ad hoc payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum by way of interim measure and further directed the Committee to reconsider the matter and finalise the fee structure.
Held :
It appears to the Court that the report is for the cost of medical education on the premise that full cost of the hospital is to be considered for all cost incurred by the medical college and hospital and it is not a study undertaken for separating expenses of running a hospital independently and additional cost to be incurred by the hospital for permitting the students to have clinical study in the hospital. The report only speaks that the professional staff salary can be bifurcated between the college and hospital in the ratio of 68:32 per cent based on the MCI’s for the time spent in the college and the hospital. But, it does not speak reverse so far as the students are concerned. Therefore, the said report cannot be considered as concluded for attributing of cost of hospital towards the medical education to be borne by the student nor the same cannot be said as conclusive. [Para 23]
The only inevitable conclusion is that the Committee has committed the above referred jurisdictional error in exercising the power for deciding/recommending/approving the fee structure as per the impugned decision. Therefore, the impugned decision of the Committee cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 24]
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it was just and proper to direct the ad hoc payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum by way of interim measure. However, it appears that earlier, vide interim order passed in Special Civil Application No. 17856/06, this Court had directed for payment of Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum by way of interim measure and the same arrangement was continued when the matter was remanded to the Committee for its consideration vide Judgement dated 07.12.2006 in the aforesaid Special Civil Application, subject to filing of the undertaking. Such arrangement can be continued until the Committee reconsiders the matter and decides afresh. [Para 26]
Law Laid Down :
Full cost of hospital attached to Medical College cannot be considered as incurred by Medical College in order to draw fee structure of MBBS Students of College.
Case Law Analysis :
Islamic Academy vs. Union of India, 2003 (6) SCC 697 [Para 8];; P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) SCC 537 [Para 9];; Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., JT 2006 (1) SC 457 [Para 14].—Relied on
Petition Allowed
Jayant Patel, J.—As in all the petitions, common question arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common Judgement.
2. Leave to delete Sardar Patel University as party respondents since in any case, the presence of the University may not be required for deciding the controversy raised in the present petitions.
3. I have heard Mr. Yagnik, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunit Shah, for respondent No.1, Mr. Dave for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 and Mrs.Nanavati for respondent No.6 for final disposal.
4. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioners who are students of Pramukhswami Medical College, respondent No.2 herein, being run by respondent No.3, have approached to this Court challenging the action of the respondent No.1 Committee for fixation of the fee structure for the course of MBBS.
5. It appears that for the academic year of 2003-2004 to 2005-2006, initially, the fee approved by the Fees Committee was of Rs. 1.45 Lakhs. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the college/institution”) had challenged the said decision of the Fee Committee before this Court and this Court had not interfered with the said decision. The matters were carried before the Letters Patent Bench and the Letters Patent Bench also dismissed the appeal. Ultimately, the matters were carried before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has by setting aside the decision of the Committee directed the Committee to take a fresh decision. It appears that thereafter, the Committee reconsidered the matter and fixed the fee structure at Rs. 1.90 Lakhs per year for the period upto 2005-2006.
6. It appears that for the period from 2006-2007 onwards, the respondent college submitted the proposal for approval before the Fee Committee for fee structure without quantifying the amount. It appears that later on as per the respondent College, the cost structure was undertaken by S.B. Billimoria & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountant and as per the respondent college, 50% of the cost of the hospital, viz. Krishna Hospital which is attached to the Medical College was also required to be included in the fixation of fee structure. Therefore, 50% of the cost of the Krishna Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “hospital”) was included and the actual cost as per the Trust per student was Rs. 3.08 Lakhs, but the fee structure suggested was Rs. 2.90 Lakhs. It appears that the information in prescribed format were supplied before the Committee by the respondent College at the initial stage for fixation of fee structure, but two aspects which may have the relevance at the later stage deserves to be recorded; one is that the building is 18 years old and the another is that the net value of the building of the college shown in the information supplied to the Committee for Medical college is Rs. 53.03 Lakhs and for academic block is Rs. 86.28 Lakhs (total Rs. 139.31 Lakhs). The another relevant aspect is that in the very report of S. Billimoria & Co., in the institution details submitted by the College to the said Chartered Accountant, it is mentioned inter alia as under:
“All the buildings are owned by Charutar Arogya Mandal and rent is not charged for the building to the respective institutions”.
7. It appears that the respondent Committee, ultimately after hearing the institution as well as the petitioner students who were represented through its Association has sanctioned the fee structure for the year of 2006-2007 of Rs. 2.20 Lakhs; for the year 2007-2008 of Rs. 2.45 Lakhs; and for the year 2008-2009 of Rs. 2.75 Lakhs. It deserves to be recorded that as submitted by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Fee Committee, the Committee considered the record produced by the institution and the same is also tendered by Mr. Shah during the course of hearing for perusal of the Court. Further, it appears from the decision of the Committee that the Committee has included 50% of the cost of hospital attached to the medical college in the fe
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
