IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of fees for private medical colleges must be conducted by the Fee Regulatory Committee as per the Act of 2006, and the State Government cannot unilaterally extend previous fee structures.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

Heard Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, Sri S.K. Chaudhary, Sri Mudit Agarwal, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur and Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are unaided private Medical Colleges who are aggrieved by the inaction of the State Government as well of the Fee Regulatory Committee as constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 2006'') in enhancing the fee to be charged from the students for various medical courses run by the petitioner Institutions for the academic session 2024-25.

3. It has been submitted by Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Institutions that with the object that the students should receive education of the highest grade in the field of medicine, the petitioner Medical Colleges have been established with the permission of the National Medical Commission. The Medical Colleges provide comprehensive facilities, faculties, and expert trained professionals for teaching, research and patient care. The petitioner Medical Colleges besides MBBS course offer various postgraduate and medical and allied courses in various clinical and non-clinical departments.

4. The admission to the petitioner Medical Colleges is done based on the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) by the Director-General of Medical Education (DGME) through counseling.

5. The issue pertaining to the fee to be charged by the private medical colleges has been the subject of litigation for a very long time. The interest of the medical colleges who have created the infrastructure out of private funds and their desire to make certain profits resulting in higher fee directly militates with the interest of the students who have to be provided highest quality of education at affordable rates. The Courts have consistently held that the private medical colleges cannot charge exorbitant capitation fee and the same have to be reasonably fixed. The balance was found in the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537, the relevant portion is quoted as under :

''Capitation fees

140. Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. ''Profession'' has to be distinguished from ''business'' or a mere ''occupation''. While in business, and to a certain extent in occupation, there is a profit motive, profession is primarily a service to society wherein earning is secondary or incidental. A student who gets a professional degree by payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a professional, is likely to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes a bane to society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and non-minority institutions for professional courses is just not permissible. Similarly, profiteering is also not permissible. Despite the legal position, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard realities of commercialisation of education and evil practices being adopted by many institutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends. If capitation fee and profiteering is to be checked, the method of admission has to be regulated so that the admissions are based on merit and transparency and the students are not exploited. It is permissible to regulate admission and fee structure for achieving the purpose just stated.''

6. To regulate the fee charged by the private professional education institutions, the State of Uttar Pradesh has enacted The Uttar Pradesh Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006.

7. The Act of 2006 defines fee in Section 3 (d) as ''all fees including tuition fee and development charges'',