By the Court.—The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13 November 2014. By the judgment which is impugned in the special appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside a decision taken by the Executive Council of the M.J.P. Ruhilkhand University (University) to demand a payment of Rs. 500/- per student as a Development fee exclusively from students of self financed institutions. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has directed the University to return the amount collected to the colleges with a further direction to the colleges to return such amount to the students concerned.

2. On 15 July 2013, the Executive Council of the University resolved to enhance the Development fee payable by every student of self financed institutions from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/-. These self financed institutions are unaided institutions which are affiliated to the University. The fee was sought to be challenged by an association representing the Managements of self financed institutions affiliated to the University. During the course of the proceedings, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the association setting out the names of twelve member colleges whose representatives are in the Committee of Management of the association. During the course of hearing, a statement was made on behalf of the association that the member institutions undertake to abide by the outcome of the writ proceedings.

3. The ground on which the challenge was addressed before the learned Single Judge was that the demand was not backed by authority of law. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention and came to the conclusion that under Section 51 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Act), the fees which may be charged by the University or by affiliated or associated colleges for any purpose are required to be determined by Ordinances. Moreover, under proviso (c) to Section 52 (3), every Ordinance affecting the income or expenditure of the University has to be approved before it is made, by the State Government. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no Ordinance was framed. The University relied upon the provisions of Section 21 (1) (viii) of the Act, which the learned Judge noted, enables the University to fix the fees, emoluments and traveling and other allowances of examiners. In this view of the matter, it was held that unless the demand of a Development fee was supported by an appropriate Ordinance framed in accordance with the provisions of Section 52, the charging of such an amount would be without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the resolution of the Executive Council dated 15 July 2013 was set aside and a direction was issued to the University to refund the amount to the colleges with a consequential direction to the colleges to return the amount to the students concerned.

4. The only submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants at the hearing of the appeal is that a writ petition filed at the behest of an association representing the self financed institutions was not maintainable. Firstly, it was urged that the fee is liable to be paid by students and no student was before the Court in order to challenge the demand which has been levied by the University in pursuance of the resolution of the Executive Council. Secondly, it was sought to be urged that the bye-laws of the association which were annexed to the writ petition did not indicate the purpose for which the association was formed. The operation of the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, it was urged, may result in the colleges unjustly enriching themselves since no student was before the Court with any grievance with regard to the levy of the fee.

5. This objection was sought to be controverted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by urging that in substance what the University has purported to do is to levy a Development fee, without