Important points:
When a statutory authority is enjoined with the power to undertake a quasi judicial function, definitely the parties should be given a fair opportunity to justify their claim. In the cases on hand, it is quite clear that the Committee failed to give sufficient opportunity to the management for a hearing, which would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, and on that ground also, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

These writ petitions (except WP(C) No. 29443/2019) concern a common question, wherein the petitioners who are conducting Self Financing Medical Colleges in the State of Kerala have challenged the orders passed by the Fee Regulatory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) inter alia contending that the Committee had not properly determined the fee for the respective academic years starting from 2017-18 onwards.

2. In fact, by an interim order dated 14/1/2020, having found that the Committee had passed the order without application of mind, we called upon the petitioners to file statements in order to ascertain whether a further enquiry is required in the matter. The said interim order was challenged by some of the contesting respondents in SLP(c) Nos.4662-4678/2020 and the Apex Court by order dated 6/3/2020 held as under:-

“Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.

It has been submitted by Mr. V. Giri and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the interim order has been questioned on many fold grounds. The High Court has wrongly observed that order passed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee is unsustainable and without hearing the case finally. Thereafter the High Court has asked for furnishing of informations/documents from the institutions. The exercise has been objected inter alia on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction to fix the fee. The High Court cannot collect the material which was not before the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee and take a decision for the first time on that.

It was pointed out by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that the matter has been remitted twice and that is why, the High Court has called for information to be furnished.

We do not want to comment on the merits of the aforesaid rival submissions at this stage, but at the same time, we are compelled to observe that the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order shall not be treated as final, binding and conclusive as the High Court has to hear the matter and decide it finally. Before deciding the matter finally, the High Court has to take a call whether it can decide the fee and on various other submissions. All the questions are kept open, to be examined by the High Court. The High Court shall not be influenced by the impugned order in any manner whatsoever while deciding the case finally in accordance with law by a reasoned order.

With the above observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of".

3. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side including some of the students who have already been impleaded in the case. The petitioners have filed statements as directed by us in our interim order dated 14/1/2020.

4. In fact, the orders passed by the Committee earlier was under challenge before this Court, and a Division Bench in Principal, KMCT Medical College and Others v. Fee Regulatory Committee and Others (2019 (2) KLT 1027) had set aside the said orders and the following directions had been issued.:-

“26. What the above provisions provide is only that no act or proceedings of the Committee shall be invalid for the reason of any defect or irregularity in its constitution. Here, there is no irregularity in the constitution of the Committee and therefore, the said provision can have no application here. Sub-section (7) empowers the Committee to regulate its procedures for the conduct of its business. The said provision also cannot replace the provision stipulating the quorum. The said provision would entitle the Committee only to regulate its own procedure. In view of the above, we are not satisfied that the above provisions are sufficient to cure the defects of the impugned orders. The judgment of the Division Bench referred to above has become final and binding. Therefore