Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.
Sanju Simon S/o Simon Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 16701, 16946, 17186, 22776 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Renjith Thampan, Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, Sri. P.S. Sidharthan, Smt. P.R. Reena.
For the Respondents: Sri. Bijoy Chandran, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, Sri. P. Sreekumar, Sri. S. Sreekumar, Sri. Arun B. Varghese, Sri. George Poonthottam, Sri. Haris Beeran, Sri. S. Vinod Bhat, Sri. Babu Karukapadath, Sri. George Jacob, Sri. Tony George Kannanthanam, Sri. Millu Dandapani, Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, Sri. P.U. Vinod Kumar, Smt. Arya Raghunath, Smt. Vaisakhi V., Sri. Mohamed Hisham P., Sri. T.M. Muhammed Musthaq, Smt. Greeshma Chandrika R., Smt. Aiswarya V.S., Smt. Varna Manoj, Sri. P. Martin Jose, Sri. P. Prijith, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Sri. Manjunath Menon, Sri. Ajay Ben Jose, Sri. Sachin Jacob Ambat, Smt. Nisha George, Smt. O.A. Nuriya, Sri. Azhar Assees, Sri. Anand B. Menon, Sri. Harikrishnan S.
Point of law: Conceptually, a fee is a remuneration for services rendered. When the fee permitted to be collected is an annual fee for rendering educational services, the collection of any fee that does not relate to the academic year for which the educational service is rendered but for a future period, would militate against the very concept of a fee for it would be a payment for services yet to be rendered.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition - Medical Council Act, 1956 – Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 - Propriety of demand of annual fees from medical students under circumstances where fee demanded pertains to an academic year different from academic year in respect of which instructions are being imparted to students - Intervention of pandemic situation in country, there was a break occasioned in imparting of instructions to students in medical educational institution concerned - Instructions relevant to an academic year could not be completed within period allotted for same and spilled over to subsequent months in a calendar year – In normal circumstances, an academic year would comprise a period of twelve months of study, and a course having duration of four and a half years would cover four full calendar years and six months in fifth calendar year, in case of MBBS Course, Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, framed under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - As a result of lock down imposed by State Government in wake of the global COVID pandemic, there was an unavoidable interruption to course of study and while months in calendar year passed by, there was no simultaneous progress in instruction months that constituted academic year.
Finding of the court: Covid pandemic without doubt brought about an unusual or exceptional situation fraught with financial implications - Exceptional situation affected not only educational institutions but also student community and their financier guardians - It would be unconscionable on part of private medical educational institutions concerned to demand determined fees, unmindful of difficulties faced by students - Court directed those among respondent private medical institutions, where petitioners in these writ petitions are studying, to refrain from demanding or collecting academic fees from them in respect of any academic year other than one for which instructions are currently being imparted based on Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 during such periods when there occurs a disruption to the continuity of the MBBS course offered by the Institution concerned - Directions issued in this judgment are to operate only in aforesaid peculiar situation thrown up by Covid pandemic
Result: Writ petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
1. These writ petitions raise a very pertinent question as regards the propriety of the demand of annual fees from medical students under circumstances where the fee demanded pertains to an academic year different from the academic year in respect of which instructions are being imparted to the students.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are students who were admitted to the 2019-2020 batch of the MBBS Course offered by various private medical colleges in the State. The fee that can be collected by the said medical colleges, from the students admitted thereto, has been fixed by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee constituted in the State of Kerala in terms of the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the “2017 Act”]. As per the provisions of the 2017 Act, the committee is expected to determine the fee that can be collected by the private medical educational institutions from the students in the year in which they are admitted to the institution concerned and the institutions are prohibited from collecting any amount in excess of the annual fee so determined, in an academic year. The yearly fee that is determined by the committee cannot also be revised by the educational institution concerned till the student completes his/her course in the institution. In the cases before us, there is no dispute with regard to the annual fee that can be collected from the students by the educational institutions concerned, or with regard to the fact that, the medical course being spread over a period of 54 months (4.5 Years), the students have to pay the annual fee for five academic years. These aspects have been determined by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee that is the statutory body vested with the power to determine them and we do not intend to interfere with the said determination.
3. The immediate provocation for the writ petitions appears to be the intervention of the pandemic situation in our country, as a result of which, there was a break occasioned in the imparting of instructions to the students in the medical educational institutions concerned. Consequently, the instructions relevant to an academic year could not be completed within the period allotted for the same and spilled over to subsequent months in a calendar year. This resulted in a situation where the students, while pursuing the second year of their course in the educational institutions, were issued with demand notices for the fee in respect of the third year of the course. The said demand notices are impugned in the writ petitions inter-alia on the contention that, by demanding fees in respect of a year different from that for which instructions are imparted, the educational institutions concerned are effectively collecting the determined fees in advance and this is not permissible going by the dictum in Islamic Academy of Education and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 697 and the provisions of Section 8(3) of the 2017 Act. The Educational institutions concerned, on the other hand, would justify the demand by arguing that it is the third calendar year since the student was admitted to the institution and, hence, they are entitled to collect the annual fee determined for the third year.
4. We have heard Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Advocate Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar, on behalf of the petitioners in all these writ petitions as also Advocate Sri. Haris Beeran, duly assisted by Advocate Smt. O.A. Nuriya, Advocate Sri. Murugan, Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Advocate Sri. Arun B. Varghese, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Advocate Smt. Nisha George, Advocate Sri. S. Vinod Bhat,
