HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Special Appeal No. 596 of 2018

Director, Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College &

Hospital and another

........Appellants

Versus

Lalit Mohan Tewari and others .….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ganga Singh Negi,

Addl. CSC for the State.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University.

Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the private respondents.

Special Appeal No. 640 of 2018

Association of Combined Entrance Examination

........Appellants

Versus

Prabhat Saini and others .….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ganga Singh Negi,

Addl. CSC for the State.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University.

Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Advocate for the private respondents.

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these appeals arise from common judgment

dated 09.07.2018 passed in WP (M/S) No. 3433 of 2016, Lalit Mohan Tiwari and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (relates to Special Appeal No.596 of 2018) and WP (M/S) No. 3462 of 2016, Prabhat Saini & others v. State of Uttarakhand and others (relates to Special Appeal No. 640 of 2018), they are heard together and being

decided by this common judgment.

2. The private respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioners”) did file writ petitions against enhanced fees. The petitioners were the students in Private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges located in the State of Uttarakhand. These colleges are under the control of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic University (“University”), which is a State University and which is under the overall supervision and control of the State Government.

3. By a Government Order dated 14.10.2015, the annual tuition fee of BAMS course was enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 2,15,000/-. Pursuant to it, the University as well as the private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges issued notices for realizing the enhanced fee. The Government Order as well as all such notices was challenged in the writ petitions.

4. By the impugned judgment, the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 and notices dated 10.10.2016, 18.11.2016 as well as demand letter dated 31.05.2017 were quashed and set aside. The Court also held that in future, the Government and the University would always be at liberty to revise this fee, but it must be based on the recommendation of the Fee Regulatory Committee (“FRC”) and it should be prospective.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Government Order dated 14.10.2015 stipulates that in case the FRC determines fee and there is a variation in the fee that is determined by the FRC and the fee determined by the Government Order dated

14.10.2015, the appellants shall meet out the difference. He also submits that the petitioners did not deposit any enhanced fee.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the fee of the private Ayurvedic Medical Colleges cannot be enhanced by a Government Order; there is an specific Act for the said purpose, namely, the Uttaranchal Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) and if any fee is enhanced or revised, it can only be made under the provisions of the 2006 Act. He would submit that the appellants have admitted that it, in fact, they charged the enhanced fee.

8. Learned counsel for the University submits that the University had issued consequential order only pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.10.2015.

9. The 2006 Act makes provision for regulation of admission and determination of fee in professional educational institutions, etc. Section 4 of it makes provision with regard to FRC. It reads as follows:-

“4. Composition, Disqualification and functions.—[(1) The Stat