The court reaffirmed that exclusion of necessary parties in fee fixation processes violates natural justice, and that fee structures must adhere to established guidelines.

JUDGMENT

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

1. The issue involved in the Review Application as well as the Writ Petition is one and the same. Therefore, both the cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Mr. V.B.R. Menon, learned Counsel for the Review Applicant, at the out set, submitted that the instant Review Application has been tagged with the Writ Petition No.6371 of 2021 filed by some of the aggrieved MBBS Students and had been ordered to be heard as a batch of “Specially Ordered Cases”. The limited scope for entertaining the Review Application under Section 114 r/w. Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC, may not act as a bar to entertain and decide the instant Review Application together with the Writ Petition, as validity of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24 of 2018, dated 03.07.2018 is the subject matter in both the cases. Therefore, the Review Application is maintainable on the following grounds:

(i) Errors apparent on the face of records.

(ii) Mistake of facts and laws.

(iii) Other sufficient reasons.

3. The learned Counsel for the Review Applicant would further submit that with regard to the first ground – errors apparent on the face of record, the order under Review does not contain any discussion, analysis or findings, anywhere in the entire 112 pages. The grounds of challenge to the Impugned G.O.No. 24 of 2018 filed by the Writ Petitioners has not been examined, in spite of recording those grounds of challenge and supporting documents in the Order under Review itself. It shall, therefore, constitute errors apparent on the face of record.

4. With respect to the exclusion of affected Students and Parents, the major stakeholders and affected parties of Annual Fee fixation, in the Fee Committee proceedings is different from the Fee Committee Report dated 19.06.2018 that had culminated in the Impugned G.O. No. 24 of 2018, dated 03.07.2018. After recording the pleadings/submissions of the Petitioners in this regard in Para No.26 of the Order under Review at Pages 326-328 of the typed set, no discussions/findings are available anywhere. Therefore, it had resulted in denial of natural justice.

5. A Conjoint reading of the previous Fee Committee Report dated 23.03.2017 and the subsequent Fee Committee Report dated 19.06.2018 at Page Nos. 55-65 and 111-116 of the typed set would reveal that the Fee Committee had committed a serious omission by excluding the important stakeholders from it's proceedings which is under challenge. This important omission had escaped the attention of the Hon'ble Bench while passing the Order under Review.

6. The Writ Petitioners had brought to the attention of the Court about the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 41475 of 2017 regarding the procedure to be adhered to by the Fee Committees during Fee Fixation and the same has been recorded in Para No.26 of the Order under Review at Pages 326- 328 of the typed set. However, no reasons or findings are found anywhere in the Order under Review for permitting departure from the mandatory procedure, having the force of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

7. A Constitution Bench has categorically held in the case of U.N. Singh vs. Additional Member, AIR 1963 SC 786 at Para Nos. 9 to 12 that Parties whose rights are likely to be adversely affected by the proceedings are necessary Parties and their exclusion from the proceedings shall vitiate the decisions taken therein. A copy of this Judgment had been submitted but was not taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Bench.

8. The submissions of the Writ Petitioners regarding the unreasonableness and arbitrariness in fixing same Annual Fee of Rs.16 Lakhs for Management Quota Seats in all the 3 Respondent-Colleges, without taking into account the costs of each institution individually, have been recorded in Para Nos. 26 and 30 of the Order under Review but no reasons or findings are found anywhere in the Order under Review for not interfering with the Impugned G.O. No. 24