V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. In all these petitions the issue involved is common and therefore the same are taken up for hearing together with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In all these petitions, the concerned petitioners have challenged the ordinance No. 2 of 2016 promulgated on 10.06.2016 under the nomenclature of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance 2 of 2016). It is prayed that the said ordinance be declared as ultra vires and the same be quashed and set aside.

3. Petition being Special Civil Application No. 10005 of 2016 is filed by consortium of self-financed dental colleges whereas all the other petitions are filed by the students through their guardian.

Special Civil Application No. 9915 of 2016

4. The petitioner, though Indian by origin, is the citizen of United States of America. Petitioner is having her permanent residence with her parents in the United States and therefore qualifies as Non-Resident Indian (NRI) for all purpose. Petitioner has studied all throughout in the United States of America till the petitioner graduated from High School in the month of May 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the parents of the petitioner made an inquiry about the prospects of the petitioner for further studies in the State of Gujarat in the discipline of Medicine upon completion of her High School Graduation from United States of America in the academic year 2015-2016. At that time, it was revealed that petitioner would be eligible for admission in the order of merit in the academic year 2016-2017 in 15% of the total available seats at the colleges earmarked for NRI as unaided colleges under the provisions of Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007) for the concerned course in the discipline of Medicine.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.C. Dave referred to the provisions contained in the Act of 2007 for NRI seats and the genesis thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 537 observed in para 131 as under:

"131. Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ('NRI', for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term 'NRI' in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only an