Judicial review of fee fixation by expert bodies is limited to procedural compliance, not the merits of the fee structure, ensuring no profiteering or capitation fees are charged.

COMMON ORDER:

Challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to G.O.Ms.No. 107, dated 28.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent State of Telangana in its Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department. By the said G.O., annual tuition fee for Private Medical Un-aided Minority and Non-minority Professional institutions was hiked for the block period 2023-26 in the range of 118% to 554% which results in profiteering or collection of capitation fee by the colleges and gross commercialisation of Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in the State, contends petitioners who appeared for post-graduate entrance exam held on 05.03.2023 by the National Eligibility and Entrance Test for the academic year 2023-24 and results thereof were declared on 14.03.2023.

2. Since the issue covered in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The grievance of petitioners is that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Islamic Academic of Education v. State of Karnataka, [2003(6) SCC 690], the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 90, dated 22.12.2003 constituting a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for fixation of fee for the students admitted into un-aided private professional educational institutions (minority and non-minority) which, though, was appointed initially for one year, subsequently, was to continue till an appropriate legislation was passed by the Parliament.

It is stated, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 6 SCC 537] the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 6, dated 08.01.2007 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Courses offered in Private Un-aided Professional Institutions Rules, 2006, in terms of Rule 4 of which, the 3rd respondent - Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) is the body to call for, decide and approve or alter and communicate the fee structure as determined by it under the Rules to the Government for notification. After reorganization of erstwhile State, vide G.O.Rt.No. 160, dated 22.07.2015, the 3rd respondent was constituted to regulate admissions and fix the fee structure for private un-aided professional colleges in the State of Telangana. Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendations of the 3rd respondent for the block period of three years i.e. from 2010-11 to 2012-13, the 1 respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 116, dated 14.05.2010 fixing fee structure Subsequently, the 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 29, dated 02.05.2016 for the academic year 2016- 17 fixing fee structure with percentage of fee hike at 10 only Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.Nos.40, 41, 42 and 43, dated 09.05.2017 framing Rules for the academic year 2017-18, fixing fee at exorbitant and unreasonable rates. Challenging the same, W.P(PIL) Nos. 130 and 133 of 2017 were filed wherein this Court vide order dated 19.01.2022, while quashing the said G.Os., directed that all students shall pay fee fixed by the TAFRC notified vide G.O.Ms.No. 29, dated 02.05.2016 for the block period 2016-19; further directing the colleges to return all original certificates forthwith to students;

refund the excess fee, if any collected within 30 days thereof.

It is also stated, for the block period 2020-23, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 20, dated 14.04.2020 which was resulting in profiteering or collection of capitation fee, therefore, questioning the same, Writ Petition No. 6799 of 2020 and batch of cases were filed, wherein, by order dated 26.05.2020, this Court, inter alia, directed petitioners therein and others belonging to Category-A to deposit 50% of the amount mentioned in the G.O.; those falling in Category-B to deposit 60% and the said Writ