Private educational institutions can set their own fee structures, provided they do not engage in profiteering or capitation fees, adhering to principles established in precedential Supreme Court cases.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The present Writ Petition filed by the Association of Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Management as a representative of the Managements of Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges situated in State of Telangana seeking directions to respondents to fix uniform fee structure for all the students admitted in first year post graduate medical and dental degree and diploma courses across the categories except NRI students. Further, seeking directions to fix different fee structures for different medical & dental colleges after taking all the relevant factors into consideration as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka : (2002) 8 SCC 481 , Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka : (2003) 6 SCC 697 , P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra , (2005) 6 SCC 537 and as further analyzed by the Division Bench of this Court in Consortium of Engineering Colleges Management Association v Govt. of Andhra Pradesh , 2012(3) LT 686.

2. Petitioner contends that it is an Association of Management of all Private Unaided Medical and Dental Colleges in State of Telangana and represents its collective wisdom and decisions. Respondent No.1 had been corresponding to petitioners' Association as representative body of All Unaided Private Medical Dental Colleges Managements in the State of Telangana. Admission into private unaided professional colleges in the country was the subject matter of decision of special bench consisting of eleven judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation’s case (supra) and the dicta laid down in the said case was further clarified in Islamic Academy’s Case (supra) and further elaborated in PA Inamdar’s case. Further, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court considered the dicta and impact of all the above judgments and decisions taken by the first respondent in batch of writ petitions relating to admissions into private engineering colleges.

2.1. It is further contended that notwithstanding the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent No. 1 has been categorizing the seats into competent authority quota seats and management quota seats. Further stated that differential fee structure has been fixed for competent authority and management quota seats falls foul of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that cross subsidization of education by charging higher fees from one category student to subsidize the education for another category is unconstitutional. However, Respondent No.2 has been recommending differential fee for different category of students and Respondent No.1 has been notifying the same. The member colleges of petitioner Association are forced to agree for the same having regard to the various factors which cannot be enumerated; however, the members have been protesting the same. It is alleged that the modus operandi adopted by Respondent No.1 is to issue relevant notifications or orders on the verge of expiry of time schedules fixed by MCI and DCI as the case may be, effectively stalling any serious challenge to their actions and making whole process a mockery.

2.2. It is stated, after formation of Telangana State, as per the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Respondent No.1 formed Respondent No.2 Committee by adopting the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (For Professional courses offered in private unaided professional institutions) Rules through