Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46630
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/29225/2020
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SMT.NISHA GEORGE
The decision emphasizes the necessity for transparent and equitable fee fixation in private medical institutions, constrained by statutory guidelines against profiteering.
Headnote:
Fee - Education - Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Education Institutions) Act, 2017 - Sections 8, 11 - The court analyzed the Committee's fee determination authority, mandated a fresh review while adhering to fee fixation principles, and directed compliance within a specified timeframe.
Fact of the Case:
Several writ petitions were filed by self-financing colleges and students challenging the fee determined by the Committee for MBBS admissions in Kerala for the academic year 2020-2021 under the Kerala Medical Education Act, 2017. Previous judgments called for a revisit of the fee fixation process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fee fixation process lacked thoroughness and was to be revisited by the Committee, ensuring adherence to the provisions of the 2017 Act while considering previous rulings and stakeholder submissions.
Issues: Primarily whether the Committee had acted within its authority in determining fees and whether the remand for reconsideration was aligned with the stipulations in the 2017 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Committee must reassess fee proposals comprehensively, according to the statutory criteria laid out in the 2017 Act, thereby ensuring fair and non-exploitative fee structures.
Final Decision: The Committee is directed to regulate fees as per Supreme Court guidelines within three months.
J U D G M E N T
[WP(C).24070/2020, WP(C).23005/2020, WP(C).23083/2020, WP(C).24219/2020, WP(C).24725/2020, WP(C).25045/2020, WP(C).25069/2020, WP(C).25137/2020, WP(C).25238/2020, WP(C).25404/2020, WP(C).25524/2020, WP(C).25781/2020, WP(C).25957/2020, WP(C).26009/2020, WP(C).26568/2020, WP(C).29192/2020, WP(C).29225/2020, WP(C).801/2021, &
WP(C).2567/2021, Gopinath, J:
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the determination of fee payable by students admitted to the MBBS course in self-financing colleges in Kerala in respect of academic year 2020-2021 by the Committee constituted under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Education Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2017 Act'). All the writ petitions except W.P (C) Nos.23005 & 23083/2020 are writ petitions filed by the self- financing colleges. W.P (C) Nos.23005 & 23083/2020 are writ petitions filed by students challenging the determination of fee by the Committee in respect of the very same academic year i.e., 2020-2021.
2. A Division Bench of this court through judgment dated 19-05-
2020 in W.P(C) No.19508/2019 and connected cases[Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute v. State of Kerala (2020 (3) KLT 615)] had occasion to consider the determination of fee by the Committee for the academic years 2017-2018 onwards. After examining in detail the parameters that ought to be taken to consideration by the Committee while fixing the fee, under the 2017 Act, the matter was remanded to the committee for fresh consideration. The Division Bench judgment of this court came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.606-616 of 2021 and connected cases. The Supreme Court disposed of the batch of appeals through judgment dated 25-02-2021.
Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
“8. Fixation of fee payable by students pursing their medical courses in the State of Kerala since 2017-18 has not been finalized till date. One college complains of nonfinalization of fee from the year 2016-17. The students are continuing their education after remitting a provisional fee. Sections 8 and 11 of the 2017 Act which provide for the powers and functions of the Committee and the factors to be taken into account for fixation of fee have been upheld by the High Court. The exercise undertaken by the Committee for finalizing the fee payable by the students for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 was examined by the High Court at the behest of the managements. The High Court by its judgment dated 28.02.2019 remanded the matter back to the Committee directing that fresh orders be passed. The State contends that the remand was for a limited purpose as the fee fixation by the Committee was set aside only because it lacked quorum and not otherwise. On the other hand, the managements insisted that the Committee had to reexamine the matter on remand by the High Court. If the remand was only on a technical ground of lack of quorum, the High Court would have mentioned it in its judgment dated 28.02.2019. The stand taken by the managements was accepted by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The High Court was of the firm opinion that the Committee ought to have considered the matter de novo and fixed the fee after giving an opportunity to the managements and after considering the proposals again. A close scrutiny of the judgement dated 28.02.2019 would not indicate that the remand was only for the purpose of curing the defect of lack of quorum. The High Court in its judgment dated 28.02.2019 considered the submissions of the managements that the Committee acted in excess of its jurisdiction conferred by Section 8 of the 2017 Act. The additional point raised by the managements that the fee was fixed without regard to the factors mentioned in Section 11 of the Act was also considered by the High Court in its judgment dated 28.02.2019. Moreover, the fee that was fixed by the Committ
