2012 (2) G.L.H 489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
V. M. SAHAI, A.J. DESAI, JJ.
CHARUTAR AROGYA MANDAL - Appellant
Versus
PARENTS ASSOCIATION FOR THE MEDICAL/DENTAL STUDENTS & 206 - Respondents
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.482 of 2008 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.25954 of 2007 WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 895 of 2008 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.25954 of 2007
Decided on : 07/05/2012
Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – NRI Fees –Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the judgment passed by Single Judge in Special Civil Application connected with other writ petitions by which Single Judge directed the matter be sent back to the Fee Committee to reconsider its decision fixing the fee structure including the aspect of surplus of NRI fees and finalize the fee structure at the earliest in light of the impugned judgment – Single Judge has further directed the students to pay the fees of Rs.1.80 Lacs for each academic year and they shall pay the difference amount, if required, after the decision of Fee Committee, if any excess amount has been deposited by the students, the same shall be refunded to them or adjusted in the next academic year if the students are to prosecute the study further for the remaining year –Held, Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge committed an error of law in entering into the accounting procedure and accounting method and in finding faults with the depreciation claimed by the appellants in absence of any pleading made in the writ petition – Court is further of the opinion that NRI surplus was not available as in the earlier years, there was no NRI seats reserved for NRI students – It was not open to the learned Single Judge to reappraise the evidence on record which was examined and approved by the experts of Fee Regulatory Committee and find faults with it in absence of any specific pleadings – Letters Patent Appeal Allowed (Paras 57, 58)
V. M. SAHAI
1. These two Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the judgment dated 19-24.03.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.25954 of 2007 connected with other writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge directed the matter be sent back to the Fee Committee to reconsider its decision fixing the fee structure including the aspect of surplus of NRI fees and finalize the fee structure at the earliest in light of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has further directed the students to pay the fees of Rs.1.80 Lacs for each academic year and they shall pay the difference amount, if required, after the decision of Fee Committee, if any excess amount has been deposited by the students, the same shall be refunded to them or adjusted in the next academic year if the students are to prosecute the study further for the remaining year.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No.895 of 2008 has been filed by the Parents Association for Medical/Dental Students, challenging the judgment dated 19/24.03.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.25954 of 2007 with Special Civil Application No.25955 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No.26054 of 2007, with Special Civil Application No.26055 of 2007 to Special Civil Application No.26152 of 2007 to the extent it permits collection of hospital expenditure by way of fee from the medical students and to revise the rate of fee of all the students on the roll.
3. These two appeals are heard together. Letters Patent Appeal No.482 of 2008 is treated to be the leading appeal and the other connected appeal would be governed by the judgment given in this appeal.
FACTS
4. Charutar Arogya Mandal, Anand is a Society and a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short 'the Trust') is the appellant No.1 in this appeal. Appellant No.1 runs Pramukhswami Medical College, Anand (for short 'Medical College') which has been arrayed as appellant No.2 to this appeal.
5. The Trust runs the Medical College on the pattern of self-financing for the purpose of imparting education in the discipline of medicine at the level of graduation. The Medical College is recognized by Medical Council of India and is affiliated to Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar. The total intake capacity of the college for imparting education in medicine leading to MBBS degree is 100 students per annum. The Trust has also established a teaching hospital known as Shree Krishna Hospital which is attached to the Medical College as Medical Council of India requires that a Medical College must be attached to some teaching hospital. The said teaching hospital i.e. Shree Krishna Hospital is also managed and maintained by the Trust. Apart from the Medical College, the Trust also runs various other institutions, namely, K.M. Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, G.H. Patel School of Nursing, H.M. Patel Institute for Post-graduate students in the discipline of medicine.
6. The fee structure of the self-financing institutions has to be scrutinized by a Committee which is to be constituted by the State Government in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697. In compliance of the directions of the Apex Court for self-financing professional colleges in Gujarat, the State of Gujarat had constituted a Fee Committee. Justice R. J. Shah (Retired) is the Chairman of Fee Committee (Medical). The function of Fee Committee is to scrutinize the fee structure evolved by the concerned self-financing institutions in the State of Gujarat in the field of medicine and para-medical courses at various levels and to verify as to whether the fee structure is based upon the cost of imparting education along with reasonable provision for future development. The Committee further has to scrutinize as to whether such fee stru
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697.
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 181
Islamic Academy (supra) and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
Cochin University and Science & Technology and Another v. Thomas P. John and Others
Cochin University ; Tata Cellular v. Union of India
State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw & Anr.
Champalal v. I.T. Commissioner, West Bengal
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Others
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd and Others
Cholan Roadways Limited v. G. Thirugnanasambandam
Mathura Prasad v. Union of India and Others
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others
T.M.A. Pai considered the decision in J.P. Unnikrishnan vs. State of A.P. (1993) 1 SCC 645
State of W.B. v. Atul Krishna Shaw and another
Swaran Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others
Champalal Binani v. The Commissioner of Income Tax W.B. And others
Ritesh Tiwari and another v. State of U.P. and other (2010) 10 SCC 677
Champalal Binani v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Ors.
Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike and Anr. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
LIC of India v. Smt. Asha Goel and Anr.
The State Financial Corporation and Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr.
Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Punjab Roadways, Moga through its General Manager v. Punjab Sahib Bus and Transport Co. and Ors
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirgnanasambandam (2005) 3 SCC 241
Bajaj Hindustan Limited v. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and another
State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. K.Shyam Sunder and others
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491
Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal (1990) 2 SCC 746;
Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372;
State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Others (1990) 1 SCC 305
Ritesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (2010) 10 SCC 677
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534
Vithal N. Shetti v. Prakash N. Rudrakar (2003) 1 SCC 18;
Devasahayam v. P. Savithramma (2005) 7 SCC 653 ;
Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252
Rajasthan Pradesh V. S. Sardarshahar v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 609.)
M/s. Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar
State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi
Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555
Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491.
Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera (2009) 15 SCC 693;
Chinta Lingam v. The Govt. of India (1970) 3 SCC 768
J. Jermons v. Aliammal (1999) 7 SCC 382
M/s Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 2 SCC 733;
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain (2010) 9 SCC 157]."
Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436
Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar
Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector (2005) 7 SCC 190 ;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.