IMPORTANT POINTS:
The nature of the enquiry to be conducted by the AFRC is totally different and is aimed at eliminating the impermissible ingredients on the basis of the dicta laid down by the Apex Court and for ensuring that the fee charged is reasonable. The Apex Court has also directed that the exercise of fixation of the fee has to be undertaken sufficiently well before the time for commencement of admissions so that there would be finality regarding the fee to be charged when the prospectus is issued. The said result can be achieved only if the colleges cooperate with the AFRC by providing all relevant documents and materials, without intimidating the AFRC with irrelevant materials.

SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

1. The dispute relating to fixation of the fees that could be charged by Private Self Fina6ncing Medical Colleges arises for consideration in this batch of Writ Petitions. As per separate orders that are under challenge in each of these Writ Petitions, the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (AFRC for short) has fixed the fees to be charged by each of the Medical Colleges in the State. The said orders are under challenge in each of these Writ Petitions filed by the respective Medical Colleges. Though separate orders have been passed and different amounts have been fixed as fee for each of the colleges, the contentions on the basis of which the impugned orders are attacked are identical. Therefore, it shall be sufficient that the contentions advanced are considered in common and answered. Such answers would determine the fate of the impugned orders. Inasmuch as the issue involved is with respect to fixation of fees, a number of students have also got impleaded and have addressed arguments. We shall consider all the contentions together.

2. Shorn of individual details, the bare facts that require notice are that, all the Writ Petitioners are self financing medical colleges and that previously the fees to be charged by them used to be fixed on the basis of consensual agreements entered into between the Government and the individual colleges. Such agreements used to provide for charging a lesser fee in respect of students allotted by the Government and a substantially higher fees in respect of the management quota students. Such agreements used to permit the Management to admit students of their choice in the management quota. The situation has now changed and admissions are made on the basis of the ranking of the students in the National Entrance cum Eligibility Test (NEET for short). The allotment of students is done by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. Therefore, at present all students are being charged the same fee, except in the case of Non Resident Indian (NRI) students. The dispute in these cases relates to the fixation of fee for the MBBS degree course for the academic year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The impugned orders are evidenced by exhibits P23 and P24 dated 28.09.2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.31473 of 2017. As per exhibit P23 the tuition fee has been fixed at Rs.4,15,000/- per student for the academic year 2016-17, for the year 2017-18 at Rs.4,80,000/- per student and for the academic year 2018-19, the fee has been fixed at Rs.5,54,000/- per student.

3. According to the petitioners, The AFRC has while passing the impugned orders disallowed a number of items of expenditure reflected in the accounts of the College, without any justification. According to some of the Colleges, expenditure amounting to one third of the term fee has been disallowed. The AFRC has exceeded its authority in doing so. It has arrogated to itself, a power that it did not have and scrutinized the audited accounts submitted by the colleges. It is the contention of the petitioners that they have absolute authority to fix the fees. Going by the decisions of the Apex Court, it is not necessary that the fees that are charged should be uniform in respect of all colleges. The fees charged would differ from college to college depending on its location, infrastructure and facilities offered. Accepting the above, the Apex Court has held that the power of the Committee was limited to examining whether the college was indulging in receiving of capitation fee or profiteering. In general therefore, all the petitioners allege that the exercise undertaken by the AFRC far exceeded its powers and for the said reason seek the issue of appropriate orders and directions setting aside the impugned orders.

4. We have heard Sr. Advocates Sri.Kurain George Kannanthanam, Sri. S.Sreekumar, Sri. George Poonthottam, Sri. K.P.Satheesan, Sri. T.A.Shaji and Advocates Chandrasekhar, George Jacob, Parvathy Menon, Ba