# U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 532
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-17
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 6828 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-unaided-medical-and-allied-sciences-college-welfare-association-ors-v-state-52393
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

(A) Education Law - determination of fees
for professional educational institutions in
Uttar Pradesh, India - role of the Fee
Regulatory Committee and the State
Government in fixing fees - The Uttar
Pradesh Private Professional Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 - Section 4(8) -
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
after
its
constitution would require the institutions
to furnish information, Section 10 -
committee shall determine the fee to be
charged , Section 11 - appeals, U.P.
Private
Professional
Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee Consideration Committee),
Rules, 2008 - Rule 3(1) - constitution of
committee
for
admission
and
fee
regulation ,Rule 5 - any professional
Institution being aggrieved by the order of
the Fee Regulatory Committee can file an
appeal before the appellate authority
appointed under Section 11 of the Act,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,789 of 57,426. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39789 for what follows._

532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
condition of employment of workmen is
not a correct law.

31. Since we have answered the
reference holding that the Labour Court has
jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate
the said disputes and this is the sole
question involved in the writ petitions
therefore, it would be a futile exercise to
send the matters back to the learned Single
Judge. Therefore, we ourselves have
undertaken the task to decide the writ
petitions.

32. Accordingly, the writ petitions
are being decided in the following manner.-

 (a) Category 'A' writ petitions
(Writ-C Nos. 5577 of 2015, 5578 of 2015,
5580 of 2015, 5582 of 2015, 5583 of 2015,
5585 of 2015, 5586 of 2015, 5588 of 2015,
5590 of 2015, 5591 of 2015, 5593 of 2015,
5594 of 2015, 5597 of 2015, 5598 of 2015,
5599 of 2015) are dismissed.

(b) Category 'B' writ petition
(Writ-C No. 2392 of 2009) is dismissed.

(c) Category 'C' writ petition
(Writ-C No. 17065 of 2018) is allowed.

(d)
The
concerned
Labour
Court(s) shall proceed with the adjudication
case(s) and proceed to pass award strictly
in
accordance
with
law
with
most
expedition.

33. Before parting, we accord our
appreciation to the able assistance rendered
by the Amicus Curiae.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 532
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Writ - C No. 6828 of 2024

U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences
College Welfare Association & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Education Law - determination of fees
for professional educational institutions in
Uttar Pradesh, India - role of the Fee
Regulatory Committee and the State
Government in fixing fees - The Uttar
Pradesh Private Professional Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 - Section 4(8) -
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
after
its
constitution would require the institutions
to furnish information, Section 10 -
committee shall determine the fee to be
charged , Section 11 - appeals, U.P.
Private
Professional
Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee Consideration Committee),
Rules, 2008 - Rule 3(1) - constitution of
committee
for
admission
and
fee
regulation ,Rule 5 - any professional
Institution being aggrieved by the order of
the Fee Regulatory Committee can file an
appeal before the appellate authority
appointed under Section 11 of the Act,
2006.

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Private Professional
Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 -
Section 4(8) and Section 10 - Fee
Determination Process - Fee Regulatory
Committee requires institutions to furnish
information
as
per
Section
10
,
Institutional Obligation - Private aided or
unaided
professional
education
institutions, or private universities, must
provide necessary information to the
Committee , Committee's Role - The
Committee determines the fee based on
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
533
the provided information , Government
Notification - After fee determination, the
State Government notifies the fees and
the period for which they apply.(Para -33)

(B) Administrative Law - doctrine of
legitimate Expectation - six key features -
legitimate expectation must be based on a
right, not just a hope or anticipation - it
arises from express or implied promises,
consistent past practices, or customs
followed
by
public
authorities
-
expectations based on sporadic, casual, or
random
acts
cannot
be
considered
legitimate egitimate - expectation applies
to
both
substantive
and
procedural
matters - it operates in the realm of public
law, where a public authority breaches a
promise or deviates from consistent past
practice without reasonable basis - only
those who have dealings or negotiations
with
public
authorities
can
invoke
legitimate
expectation,
not
total
strangers. (Para 53)

(C) Administrative Law - doctrine of
legitimate Expectation - Private medical
colleges have a legitimate expectation
that the Fee Regulatory Committee will
determine fees - held - petitioners have a
legitimate expectation that the Fee Regulatory
Committee will determine fees for the academic
session 2024-25 - committee's failure to perform
this statutory duty amounts to a breach of
legitimate expectation. (Para - 53)

State Government issued a notification -
exercising its powers under section 4(8) of the
Act 2006 - without any determination of fee by
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
-
Petitioners
(unaided private Medical Colleges) aggrieved by
inaction of State Government as well of Fee
Regulatory Committee - enhancing the fee to be
charged from the students - for various medical
courses - for the academic session 2024-25 -
hence petition. (Para - 2, 27,32)

HELD: - State Government's order passed
without the recommendations of the fee
regulatory committee quashed due to lack of
jurisdiction. Directions for the Fee Regulatory
Committee to proceed with fixing the fee for the
academic session 2024-25 in accordance with
law. (Para -55,56)

Petition allowed. ( E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. P.A. Inamdar Vs St. of Maha., (2005) 6 SCC
537

2. P.A. Inamdar & Ors Vs St. Of Maha. & ors,
(2006) of SCC 293

3. I.I.M.E.S. & Anr. Vs St. of UP & ors., 2016
SCC Online All 3451

4. I.A.E. Vs St. of Karn., (2003) 6 SCC 697

5. A.W.E.S. New Delhi Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma &
ors., 2024 SCC online 1683

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. 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 202425.

3. It has been submitted by Sri
Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate,
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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", while subclause (i) defines Private Professional
Educational Institution as "a professional
educational institution not established or
maintained by the Central Government, the
State Government or any public body", and
sub-clause (o) defines Unaided Institution
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
535
as "a private professional educational
institution, not being an aided institution".

8. Chapter II of the Act of 2006
provides
for
the
constitution
of
Fee
Regulatory Committee while Section 4
provides for composition, qualification and
functions of the Committee. The Committee
shall be presided over by a person who is or
who has been a Senior Administrative Officer
of the State or Vice-Chancellor of a Central
University or a State University or a Deemed
to be University who shall be called the
Chairman of the Committee and shall include
two other Members having experience in
matters of finance or administration.

9. Sub Section (8) of Section 4 of
the Act, 2006 provides for determination of
fee by the Committee which is as under: -

"(8) The Committee may require
a private aided or unaided professional
educational institution or, a deemed to be
University or a private University to
furnish, by a prescribed date, information
as may be necessary for enabling the
Committee
to determine
the
fee
as
prescribed under section 10 of this Act that
may be fixed by the institution in respect of
each professional course, and the fee so
determined shall be valid for such period
as notified by the State Government."

10. The parameters to be considered by
the Fee Regulatory Committee to determine
the fees to be charged by the private aided or
unaided professional education institution
have been provided in Section 10 of the Act,
2006, which is as follows:-

"10.(1) The Committee shall
determine, the fee to be charged by a
private aided or unaided professional
educational institution having regard to:-
(i) the nature of the professional course,
(ii) the available infrastructure, (iii) a
reasonable surplus required for growth
and development of the professional
institution,
(iv)
the
expenditure
on
administration and maintenance, (v) the
expenditure on teaching and non teaching
employees of the institution, (vi) any other
relevant factor. (2) The Committee, shall
give the institution an opportunity of being
heard before fixing any fee:- Provided that
no such fee, as may be fixed by the
Committee, shall amount to profiteering
or commercialization of education."

11. The Act of 2006 also provides
for an appeal against the order of the Fee
Regulatory Committee in the following
terms:-

"11. The State Government shall
appoint an Appellate Authority, headed by
a person who has been a Judge of the
High Court, before which a person or
professional institution aggrieved by an
order of the Committee may file an
appeal, which a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of such an order."

12. To give effect to the provisions of
the Act, 2006, the State has framed U.P.
Private
Professional
Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee Consideration Committee),
Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules, 2008"), by means of which
composition of Committee has been fixed.
According to Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2008,
Committee
for
admission
and
fee
regulation has been constituted consisting
of (a) Principal Secretary/Secretary to
Government in the concerned Department
as Chairman alongwith two other members
who have experience in the matter of
finance and administration.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008 further
provides that any professional Institution
being aggrieved by the order of the Fee
Regulatory Committee can file an appeal
before the appellate authority appointed
under Section 11 of the Act, 2006, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of such an order.

14. Considering the facts of the
present case it has been submitted that in
exercise of power under the Act, 2006 read
with Rules, 2008 the Fee Regulatory
Committee had determined fee for the
academic Session 2012-13 which was valid
for three academic sessions and thereafter,
fee determination was done in the year
2017 and was notified by means of
Government Order dated 14.07.2017 for
three academic sessions i.e. 2017-18, 201819 and 2019-20.

15. The Fee Regulatory Committee
was again constituted by means of
Government Order dated 13.10.2020 for
fixing fee for academic session 2021-22
and according to the scheme provided for
under the Act, 2006, proposals were invited
alongwith relevant documents in prescribed
format for fee determination vide letter
dated 23.06.2021. After due consideration
by the Fee Regulatory Committee the fee
for MBBS, MD/MS was determined for the
academic Session 2021-22 and the said fee
structure was notified by Government
Order dated 08.12.2021. It is relevant to
note that as per aforesaid notification of the
State Government dated 08.12.2021, the
fee was notified only for academic session
2021-22.

16. In 2023, the Fee Regulatory
Committee conducted its meetings on
26.09.2023, 27.06.2023 and 31.07.2023
and
after
considering
the
various
documents and proposals, submitted by the
Medical Colleges, it recommended to
continue with the same fee structure, which
was determined for academic session 202122, for academic session 2023-24.

17. For the academic session 2024-25,
the
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
was
constituted on 12.06.2024, but it seems that
the Committee did not undertake the
exercise as provided for under the Act,
2006 and neither did it make any
recommendations to the State Government
and in the aforesaid circumstances the State
Government
by
means
of
impugned
Government
Order
dated
11.07.2024,
extended the fee structure as determined for
academic session 2023-24 to the academic
session 2024-25.

18. The petitioner Institutions have
approached this Court by means of present
writ petition challenging the notification
dated 11.07.2024 and have further sought
direction to the respondents to determine
tuition fee and other fees on the basis of
proposals and documents submitted by the
Colleges for academic session 2024-25 in
accordance with the Act of 2006. It has
been submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the respondents are bound
to comply with the provisions of Act, 2006
and determine the fee structure after expiry
of notification previously issued whereby
the fee was determined by the Fee
Regulatory Committee and notified by the
State Government.

19. It was submitted that the
Government Order dated 11.07.2024 is
illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as it has been
issued bereft of any recommendations by
the Fee Regulatory Committee and in
absence of any recommendation, the
Government has no power or jurisdiction to
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
537
issue any notification with regard to the fee
structure and accordingly the impugned
Government Order has been passed without
any jurisdiction.

20. Lastly, it was submitted that there
is no nexus between the last date for
counseling and fixation of fee, as the
respondents were under a mandate to
determine the fee prior to commencement
of counseling or start of academic session
which they have failed to do and now they
are seeking benefit of their own lapse. It
was submitted that there is no provision
either in the Act of 2006 or in the Rules of
2008 providing for determination of the fee
prior to counseling. In response to the stand
of the State Government and other
respondents that there is not much time left
before commencement of counseling, it has
been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
Institutions that they would be ready and
willing to give an undertaking that the fee
may be enhanced applying the rate of
inflation on the fee determined for
academic session 2021-22, which exercise
can be concluded within a short time, and
in any case before the commencement of
counseling.

21. The respondents on the other hand
have vehemently opposed the writ petition.
A preliminary objection has been raised by
them that the writ petition having been filed
by an Association is not maintainable, in as
much as the beneficiaries, if any would be
the individual medical colleges and not the
Association.

22. It has been submitted that the
State Government by means of an order
dated 11.07.2024, has decided to continue
with the same fee structure as decided by
Government Order dated 02.08.2023 for
the academic session 2023-24. It was
further stated that the said decision has
been taken keeping in view the fact that
counseling for the MDS course would
commence much earlier than in the
previous years and not much time is left
before
commencement
of
counseling,
therefore the fee structure had to be notified
so that the students are aware of the fee
structure at the time of filing their choices
of the Medical Colleges.

23. In the aforesaid circumstances it
was submitted that the Government Order
dated 11.07.2024 does not suffer from any
illegality and the decision has been taken
only in the interest of the students so that
they do not suffer difficulty while filling up
their choice of Institutions during PG
Counseling and NEET UG Counseling.

24. It was further submitted that as
per the provisions of Section 4(8) of the
Act, 2006 it is prerogative of the State
Government to extend the fee decided in
any particular year to the next academic
year, and therefore it was within the
jurisdiction of the State Government to
have passed the impugned Government
Order.

25. It is further submitted by the
respondents
that
the
Fee
Regulatory
Committee
was
constituted
by
the
Government order dated 12.06.2024 and is
in the process to determine fee for five new
Medical Colleges who will start the course
in the academic session 2024-25. Since fee
structure of five new Medical Colleges was
not determined, they stand on completely
different
footing
than
the
petitioner
Institutions. It was further submitted that it
not necessary that fee be determined every
year nor there is any statutory provision
providing for the same and accordingly,
there is no illegality in continuing the same
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fee structure for subsequent years which
was determined for the academic session
2021-22.

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

27. The question which falls for
consideration before this court is whether
the
State
Government
can
issue
a
notification in the exercise of its powers
under section 4(8) of the Act of 2006
without there being any determination of
fee by the Fee Regulatory Committee?

28. The issue pertaining to regulation
of the fee chargeable from the students by
the
medical
and
other
professional
institutions has been subject matter of
litigation before the Hon'ble Apex Court
and in the case of P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs
State Of Maharashtra & Ors, (2006)13
SCC 293 it was held that the Committee
should be formed which would determine
the fee to be charged by the professional
institutes taking into account various
aspects, in the following terms as stated in
paragraph 68 of the said judgement:-

"B. FEES:

The Committee suggested by
Islamic Academy and the procedure
mentioned therein, appears to be the only
safe method of ensuring that extortionate
fees are not charged by the medical
colleges. At the same time, it would be
wrong to deny expenditure which the
institution
undertakes
for
ensuring
excellence
in
education.
Equally,
a
reasonable surplus should be permitted so
that the fees charged cover the entire
revenue expenditure and in addition leaves
a reasonable surplus for future expansion.
This alone would prevent the clandestine
collection of capitation fees and would
result in entrepreneurs investing in new
medical colleges.

The Committee suggested by
Islamic Academy appears to be the ideal
one consisting of a chartered accountant, a
representative of the MCI or AICTE as the
case may be, with a retired judge of the
High Court or the Supreme Court as the
head.

The fee is to be fixed on the
proposal of the institution supported by
documents and the procedure of fee
finalization should commence at least 6
months in advance of the commencement of
the academic year."

29. The State of U.P with the object to
provide for regulation of admission and
fixation of fee in private professional
education Institutions and the matters
connected therewith enacted the Uttar
Pradesh Private Professional Educational
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and
Fixation of Fee) Act, 2006 which provided
for constitution of an admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee. The procedure to
be followed by the said Committee was
provided for under section 4(8) according
to which the Committee would require the
private aided or unaided professional
education Institution to furnish information
regarding the nature of professional course,
the
availability
of
infrastructure,
a
reasonable surplus required for growth and
development,
expenditure
on
Administration
and
maintenance
the
expenditure on teaching and non-teaching
employees of the institution etc. as
provided in Section 10 of the Act of 2006.

30. Once the information is furnished
by the institutions, the committee would
proceed to determine the fee to be charged
from the students, and such determination
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
539
would be valid for such period as notified
by the State Government.

31. With regard to the issue of
maintainability it is noticed that the present
writ petition has been filed by the U.P
Unaided Medical and Allied Sciences
College Welfare Association, Bareilly
along with 17 Medical Colleges. The
association has been made a petitioner as
the individual medical colleges were in
communication with the State Government
under the umbrella of the Association.
While even if the objections of the
respondents are sustained, which are only
with regard to the Association, it is noticed
that 17 individual medical colleges have
also joined as petitioners in the present writ
petition, and these individual medical
colleges have a common grievance against
the
respondents
pertaining
to
the
determination of fee for the academic
session 2024-25 and hence there is no
doubt that the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India would be
maintainable
at
their
behest,
as
undoubtedly they are the "aggrieved
persons" seeking redressal against the
purportedly illegal and arbitrary State
action.
According,
the
preliminary
objection with regard to the maintainability
of the writ petition is rejected.

32. The issue for consideration before
this court is with regard to the fact as to
whether the State Government can notify
the fees in exercise of its powers under
Section 4 (8) of the Act of 2006 without
there being any determination by the Fee
Regulatory Committee as has been done for
the academic session 2024-25.

33. The answer to the aforesaid
question can be found on prudent perusal of
Section 4(8) and Section 10 of the Act of
2006, which confers the power and
provides the procedure for determination of
the fee. In sub-clause 8 of Section 4 the Fee
Regulatory Committee after its constitution
would require the institutions to furnish
information as per Section 10 which may
enable it to make determination of fee. The
private aided or unaided professional
education Institutions or private university
etc. must furnish such information to the
Committee as sought which is necessary
for
the
Committee
which
has
to
"determine" the fee. Therefore, a bare
perusal of the aforesaid provisions, clearly
indicate
that
the
responsibility
of
determination of fee has been given only to
the Fee Regulatory Committee constituted
under the said act. Once the fee has been
determined, the State Government would
have to notify the said fees and also the
period for which such determination has
been made.

34. The aforesaid interpretation is also
fortified by reading of Section 10 of the
Act of 2006 which clearly states that
"committee shall determine the fee to be
charged...", and therefore, only the Fee
Regulatory Committee has been given the
mandate to determine the fee. The State
Government only has to notify such
determination and also specify the period
during which is that determination of fee
shall remain valid. The recommendations
of the Fee Regulatory Committee are
binding of the State Government but are
implementable on their being notified by
the State Government.

35. This Court in the case of Indian
Institute
of
Management
and
Engineering Society and Another vs
State of UP and others, 2016 SCC Online
All 3451 had an occasion to consider a
similar controversy whereby the private
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
technical Institutions had been directed to
charge fee for the session 2016-17 as
determined earlier by the Fee Regulatory
Committee for session 2012-13. The State
therein had also taken a similar plea stating
that due to paucity of time the fee
determined earlier would continue to be the
fee for the session 2016-17 as no
determination has been made by the
Committee.
The
dispute
which
had
engaged the attention of this Court was also
to be resolved having regard to the
provisions of the Act of 2006 and therefore
the findings of the Court are germane for
determination of the controversy in the
instant case. This Court had allowed the
writ petition in the following terms:-

"The learned counsel for the
respondent would urge that in continuing
the fee fixed earlier for 2016-17 is in
keeping with the interest of the students.
The argument on face value appears
attractive, but tested in depth, appears
shallow and lacks merit. The interest of the
students is sub-served best by institutions of
repute, imparting quality education of
international standard. The students are
prepared to pay more on placement in such
institutions; if the argument that is sought
to be advanced by the learned counsel for
the respondent is accepted then a much
lower fee would serve the student interest
but unfortunately the State does not
sponsor or assist financially in either
setting up such private institutions or
provide working capital. It is for these
reasons the Apex Court held that fixation of
fee should be left to the private institutions
but should be monitored by a Committee so
as to prohibit profiteering or from charging
capitation fee; the role of the Committee is
not that of a 'big brother' to force upon an
institution fees determined three years
earlier and compel the institution to run the
courses
at
rates
which
makes
it
unworkable,
therefore,
seriously
undermining quality instructions to the
students. The cow cannot be milked for
long without appropriately feeding it.

The
cut
of
date
fixed
for
admission would have no bearing, as
admittedly
the
Committee
failed
to
discharge its statutory duty cast upon it
under the Act 2006 and Regulation 2015
framed thereunder. A writ would issue
directing the Committee to discharge its
legal duty. The conduct of the Committee
has not only been casual as reflected from
the record but also arbitrary which is
deprecated. It is not open for the
Committee to say that it would not
discharge its statutory duty due to paucity
of time.

In the facts of the present case,
out of 24 institutions only 5 institutions had
submitted their proposal and only three
institutions have approached this Court for
enhancement of their fee for session 201617. The other institutions which have not
approached are either not having students
in requisite number or infrastructure to
cater the students, therefore, may have
preferred to continue on the fee determined
in 2013. The petitioner-Institution being a
premium private institute has sought
revision, therefore, it was incumbent upon
the Committee to have addressed the issue
of fee review.

In
these
circumstances,
the
impugned order dated 22 June 2016 passed
by the third respondent-Special Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
cannot be sustained, accordingly, quashed.

The writ petition is allowed with
the following directions:

(i) Committee shall fix the fee for
session
2016-17
in
respect
of
the
Institutions before the Court, after hearing
their representative;
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
541

(ii)
Institutions
undertake
to
submit their proposal before the Committee
within one week from date i.e. by 29 August
2016;

(iii) Committee shall determine
the fee for 2016-17 within four weeks
thereafter i.e. by 26 September 2016;

(iv) The fee charged by the
Institution
for
2016-17
would
be
provisional fee subject to the final fee
determined by the Committee;

(v)
Upon
enhancement,
the
arrears would be payable by the students in
installment
(half
yearly/quarterly)
depending upon the hike recommended by
the
Committee.
Installment
to
be
determined by the Committee.

(vi) Committee in future to
discharge
its
statutory
function
in
determination of fee well in advance."

36. We have perused a few of the
previous Government Orders notifying the
fee and found that, even the State
Government has notified the fee after
recommendations have been made by the
Fee Regulatory Committee. They had
followed this very procedure for the
academic session 2011-12, which was
preceded by recommendation of the Fee
Regulatory Committee. By means of
Government
Order
any
02/06/2016
decision was taken by the Fee Regulatory
Committee to extend the fees previously
fixed. For academic session 2021-22 the
Constitution of the committee was notified
on
08/12/2021.
On
02/08/2023
the
Government order was issued conveying
the recommendations of the Fee Regulatory
Committee extending the fee for academic
session 2023-24. Therefore, the State has
all
along
been
issuing
notifications
conveying the recommendations of the Fee
Regulatory Committee. It is for the
academic
session
2024-25
that
the
impugned notification has been issued by
the State Government in absence of any
recommendations having been made by the
Fee Regulatory Committee. In paragraph
24 of the counter affidavit, it has been
stated that the State Government by means
of its order dated 11/07/2023 has decided to
continue with the same fee structure as
decided by GO dated 02/08/2023, therefore
there is no doubt with regard to the fact that
for the academic session 2024-25 the
determination has been made by the State
Government itself to continue with the fee
structure decided previously. This decision
in the considered opinion of this Court is
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions
contained in the Act of 2006, where it has
been provided that the power to determine
the fee of the educational institutions vests
only with the Fee Regulatory Committee
and the role of the State Government is
limited
only
to
notifying
such
determination/decision as made by the
Committee.

37. For the academic session 2024-25
the Fee Regulatory Committee has been
constituted on 12/06/2024, and as per the
statutory duty cast on it by the Act of 2006,
it was under a duty to proceed to
determination the fees following the
procedure prescribed in the Act of 2006
read with rules of 2008. The counter
affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
Fee Regulatory Committee, but there is no
mention about the stage of exercise which
has been conducted by them towards
determining the fee, while on the other
hand it has been contended that the
schedule for counseling of MBBS is to start
shortly and therefore there is no time left to
determine
the
fee
and
the
State
Government has decided to continue with
the same fee structure as decided for
previous years. It seems that the Fee
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulatory
Committee
has
failed
to
undertake the exercise after being duly
constituted
and
has
not
made
any
recommendations
determining
the
fee
which is certainly a very serious lapse on
its part resulting in deprivation of the
enhanced
fee
which
the
petitioner
institutions would have been legally and
validly entitled to.

38.

Once
the
Fee
Regulatory
Committee has been constituted, it has to
proceed to determine the fee in accordance
with law, and its mandate ends only when
such determination has been made, or the
State Government terminates its constitution.
In the present case after being duly
constituted by means of Government Order
dated 12/06/2024, the committee has not
forwarded its recommendations to the State
Government for notification, nor is there any
notification ending its mandate and therefore
its mandate continues as neither of these
contingencies have occurred.

39. The delay in the Constitution of
the Fee Fixation Committee has been
attributed to the General Elections in the
country. It could not be demonstrated on
behalf of the respondents that fixation of fee
for educational institutions has any bearing
on the elections, or there was any order of the
Election
Commission
restraining
the
constitution of the said Committee, or further
even if there was any confusion in this regard
whether any permission was sought from the
Election
Commission.
No
plausible
explanation in this regard is forthcoming
from the respondents. Accordingly, there is
no plausible reason for the delay in the
constitution of the Committee which is
deprecated in strongest terms.

40. Another issue that has been raised
and contested by both the parties is with
regard to the period during which the
recommendations of the Fee Regulatory
Committee would hold field, and whether
such an exercise would have to be
conducted annually.

41. Learned Additional Chief Standing
counsel on behalf of the respondents has
vehemently urged that this aspect of the
matter has been concluded by the Supreme
Court in the case of Islamic Academy of
Education v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 6
SCC 697 where it was held:-

"161. Fees once fixed should not
ordinarily be changed for a period of three
years, unless there exists an extraordinary
reason.
The
proposed
fees,
before
indication in the prospectus issued for
admission, have to be approved by the
concerned authority/body set up. For this
purpose the application should not be filed
later than April of the preceding year of the
relevant
education
session.
The
authority/body shall take the decision as
regards fees chargeable latest by October
of the year concerned, so that it can form
part of the prospectus. No institution
should charge any fee beyond the amount
fixed and the fee charged shall be deposited
in a nationalized bank. In other words, no
employee or any other person employed by
the management shall be entitled to take
fees in cash from the students concerned
directly. The statutory authority may
consider the desirability of framing an
appropriate regulation inter alia to the
effect that in the event it is found that the
management
of
a
private
unaided
professional institution has accepted any
amount other than the fees prescribed by
the Committee, it may have to pay a penalty
ten to fifteen times of the amount so
collected and in a suitable case it may also
lose its recognition or affiliation."
8 All. U.P. Unaided Medical And Allied Sciences College Welfare Association & Ors.
543

42. In this regard it is noticed that the
directions of the Supreme Court in the case
of Islamic Academy of Education v. State
of Karnataka, (supra) with regard to the
fee
Committee
hold
field
only
till
appropriate statutory regulations are made
by the State Governments. This was clearly
stated in paragraph 159 which is as follows:
-

"159. With a view to ensure that
an educational institution is kept within its
bounds and does not indulge in profiteering
or
otherwise
exploiting
its
students
financially, it will be open to the statutory
authorities and in their absence by the
State to constitute an appropriate body, till
appropriate statutory regulations are made
in that behalf."

43. Considering the above, this Court
is of the view that once the State of Uttar
Pradesh has enacted the Act of 2006, then
the provisions contained therein shall
prevail. As already discussed above in
detail regarding the provisions contained in
Section 4(8) of the Act of 2006, the Fee
Regulatory Committee has to call for
relevant data and material from the
educational institutions and determine the
fee. The determination has to be notified by
the State Government which has also to
provide for "fee so determined to be valid
for such period.....". Therefore, the validity
of the determination made by the Fee
Regulatory Committee shall hold field for
the duration for which notification has been
issued by the State Government. At this
stage we would also like to make it clear
that even the period of the validity of the
fee fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee
must be made by the Committee and is not
at the discretion of the Government. The
Fee Regulatory Committee at the time of
determining the fee can take into account
such conditions and apply the principles for
fixing the fee, which can extend its validity
beyond an academic session or for 2 or
more years. Accordingly, this Court is of
the considered view that even the extension
of the period for which the fee is
determined is part of the process of
"determination" of fee as per Section 4(8)
read with Section 10 of the Act of 2006,
which has to be done by the Fee Regulatory
Committee.
The
State
Government
therefore is tasked only to notify the
recommendations of the Committee with
regard to the fee as well as the period of its
validity.

44. Section 11 of the Act of 2006
provides for constitution of an appellate
authority which is headed by a person who
has been a Judge of the High Court, before
whom a person or professional Institution
aggrieved by the order of the committee
may file an appeal within 30 days from the
date of receipt of the order.