( 1 ) 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 and 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 and 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 earned 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 and 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 and 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 hosp