# VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2019] 8 S.C.R. 927
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5133 of 2019
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vasavi-engineering-college-parents-association-v-state-of-telangana-and-others-33961
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission
and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - s.15 r/w. ss.3 and 7
- Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for
Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 - rr. 3 and 4(v) - The Telangana Admission
and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) u/r. 4 (v) communicated
the fee structure determined by it to the State Government for
Notification - The fee structure was notified, inter-alia for the B.E.
and B. Tech Courses, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 -
The said fee structure was challenged by the respondent institutions
before the High Court - Single Judge of the High Court remanded
the matter to the TAFRC for reconsideration - Pursuant thereto,
the Committee granted some escalations, however, the same was
challenged again - Thereafter, the High Court redetermined the
fee structure for the block period itself - Aggrieved, the State and
the fee Regulatory Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before
the Division Bench of the High Court - On appeal, held: Judicial
review lies against the decision-making process and not the merits
of the decision itself - If the decision-making process is flawed,
inter-alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is
ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration
irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admit materials
behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no
reasonable persons would have taken such decision in the
circumstances, the Court may step in to correct the error by setting
aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a
fresh decision in accordance with the law - However, the Court, in
the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
decision maker and make the decision itself - It cannot act as an
appellate authority of the TAFRC - Further, TAFRC is a statutory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
body headed by a retired High Court Judge, consists of domain
experts from various fields including two from the finance sector,
one of which is from the Government - The Court should avoid to
interfere with the recommendations of an expert body, which is
accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of
the law under which it was constituted - In the instant case, as
demonstrated from the available records none of the grounds set
out by the High Court can be considered as making out an
exceptional case to warrant usurpation of the decision making
jurisdiction of the TAFRC by the High Court - Thus, the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with recommendation of the
TAFRC - The orders of the High Court set aside - Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the controversy is the jurisdiction
and the extent to which the court can examine the determination
of the fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) and approved by the State
government, in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The
TAFRC, a statutory body headed by a retired High Court Judge,
consists of domain experts from various fields including two from
the finance sector, one of which is from the Government. Rule
3(vii) of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 vests the TAFRC with the power to
frame its own procedure in accordance with regulations notified
by the Government in that regard and pursuant to which the
guidelines for fee fixation have been framed by it. The
recommendations of the TAFRC being the resultant of a quasijudicial decision-making process, it will undoubtedly be amenable
to the jurisdiction of the court for scrutiny by judicial review, so
as to ensure adherence to the constitutional principles of
reas

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 58,537. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
 [2019] 8 S.C.R. 927
927
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5133 of 2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Telangana Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission
and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - s.15 r/w. ss.3 and 7
- Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for
Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 - rr. 3 and 4(v) - The Telangana Admission
and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) u/r. 4 (v) communicated
the fee structure determined by it to the State Government for
Notification - The fee structure was notified, inter-alia for the B.E.
and B. Tech Courses, for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 -
The said fee structure was challenged by the respondent institutions
before the High Court - Single Judge of the High Court remanded
the matter to the TAFRC for reconsideration - Pursuant thereto,
the Committee granted some escalations, however, the same was
challenged again - Thereafter, the High Court redetermined the
fee structure for the block period itself - Aggrieved, the State and
the fee Regulatory Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before
the Division Bench of the High Court - On appeal, held: Judicial
review lies against the decision-making process and not the merits
of the decision itself - If the decision-making process is flawed,
inter-alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is
ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration
irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admit materials
behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no
reasonable persons would have taken such decision in the
circumstances, the Court may step in to correct the error by setting
aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a
fresh decision in accordance with the law - However, the Court, in
the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
decision maker and make the decision itself - It cannot act as an
appellate authority of the TAFRC - Further, TAFRC is a statutory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
body headed by a retired High Court Judge, consists of domain
experts from various fields including two from the finance sector,
one of which is from the Government - The Court should avoid to
interfere with the recommendations of an expert body, which is
accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of
the law under which it was constituted - In the instant case, as
demonstrated from the available records none of the grounds set
out by the High Court can be considered as making out an
exceptional case to warrant usurpation of the decision making
jurisdiction of the TAFRC by the High Court - Thus, the High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with recommendation of the
TAFRC - The orders of the High Court set aside - Judicial Review.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The crux of the controversy is the jurisdiction
and the extent to which the court can examine the determination
of the fee structure by the Telangana Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee (TAFRC) and approved by the State
government, in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The
TAFRC, a statutory body headed by a retired High Court Judge,
consists of domain experts from various fields including two from
the finance sector, one of which is from the Government. Rule
3(vii) of Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(for Professional Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional
Institutions) Rules, 2006 vests the TAFRC with the power to
frame its own procedure in accordance with regulations notified
by the Government in that regard and pursuant to which the
guidelines for fee fixation have been framed by it. The
recommendations of the TAFRC being the resultant of a quasijudicial decision-making process, it will undoubtedly be amenable
to the jurisdiction of the court for scrutiny by judicial review, so
as to ensure adherence to the constitutional principles of
reasonableness, fairness and adherence to the law under Article
14 of the Constitution. [Para 16] [947-B-D]
2. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the
decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.
If the decision-making process is flawed inter alia by violation of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
the basic principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires the powers of
the decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials
or excludes relevant materials, admits materials behind the back
of the person to be affected or is such that no reasonable person
would have taken such a decision in the circumstances, the court
may step in to correct the error by setting aside such decision
and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in
accordance with the law. The court, in the garb of judicial review,
cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make
the decision itself. Neither can it act as an appellate authority of
the TAFRC. [Para 17] [947-E-G]
3. It needs no emphasis that complex executive decisions
in economic matters are necessarily empiric and based on
experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid
principles or the application of any straitjacket formula. The court
while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in economic
matters must grant a certain measure of freedom or play in the
joints to the executive. Not mere errors, but only palpably
arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in judicial review.
The recommendation made by a statutory body consisting of
domain experts not being to the satisfaction of the State
Government is an entirely different matter with which this Court
is not concerned in the present discussion. The court should
therefore be loath to interfere with such recommendation of an
expert body, and accepted by the government, unless it suffers
from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates
any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. The
court cannot sit as an appellate authority, entering the arena of
disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to manner in which
the TAFRC ought to have proceeded without any finding of any
violation of rules or procedure. If a statutory body has not
exercised jurisdiction properly the only option is to remand the
matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the
authority. [Para 19] [948-E-H; 949-A-B]
4. In the context of Indian jurisprudence, the Constitution
is the supreme law. All executive or legislative actions have to
be tested on the anvil of the same. Such actions will have to draw
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
their sustenance as also their boundaries under the same. Any
action falling foul of the constitutional guarantees will call for
corrective action in judicial review to ensure adherence to the
constitutional ethos. But so long as the fabric of the constitutional
ethos is not set asunder, the court will have to exercise restraint,
more particularly in matters concerning domain experts, else the
risk of justice being based on individual perceptions which may
render myths as realities inconsistent with the constitutional
ethos. Courts often adjudicate disputes that raise the question of
how strictly should they scrutinise executive or legislative action.
Therefore, courts have identified certain questions as being
inappropriate for judicial resolution or have refused on
competency grounds to substitute their judgement for that of
another person on a particular matter. The need for judicial
restraint with regard to recommendations of expert committees,
more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics,
was considered in various Supreme Court Judgments. [Para 20]
[949-E-G]
5. Therefore, of the considered opinion in the facts of the
present case, as demonstrated from the available records that
none of the four grounds set out by the High Court can be
considered as making out an exceptional case to warrant
usurpation of the decision making jurisdiction of the TAFRC by
the High Court. [Para 25] [953-A-B]
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri
v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 : [1981] 2 SCR
52 ; State of (NCT) of Delhi v. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC
181 : [2005] 3 SCR 151 ; Peerless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992)
2 SCC 343 : [1992] 1 SCR 406 ; BALCO Employees'
Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333 :
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511 ; Government of Andhra
Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720 : [2008] 3
SCR 330 ; Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd. v. CSEPDI-Trishe Consortium, (2017)
4 SCC 318 : [2016] 7 SCR 495 - relied on.
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K.S. Jagannathan
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
and another (1986) 2 SCC 679 : [1986] 2 SCR 17 ;
Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. (2000)
8 SCC 395 - distinguished.
Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of
Karnataka and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 : [2003] 2
Suppl. SCR 474 ; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State
of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481 : [2002]
3 Suppl. SCR 587 ; Modern School v. Union of India,
(2004) 5 SCC 583 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 668 ; D.N.
Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnatka,
(2016) 2 SCC 653 : [2015] 12 SCR 115 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 474
referred to
Para 2
[1981] 2 SCR 52
relied on
Para 17
[2005] 3 SCR 151
relied on
Para 18
[1992] 1 SCR 406
relied on
Para 19
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511
relied on
Para 20
[2008] 3 SCR 330
relied on
Para 21
[2016] 7 SCR 495
relied on
Para 22
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587
referred to
Para 23
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 668
referred to
Para 23
[2015] 12 SCR 115
referred to
Para 24
[1986] 2 SCR 17
distinguished
Para 25
(2000) 8 SCC 395
distinguished
Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5133
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 798 of 2017.
With
C. A. No. 5135/2019 and C.A. No. 5134/2019
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., D. Mahesh Babu, Shishir Pinaki,
Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Sravan Kumar, Aditya Kumar, Vijendra
Mishra, Sidhartha Iyer, P. Venkat Reddy, Abhisekh Reddy, Prashant Tyagi
for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
Fali S. Nariman, Parag P. Tripathi, K. V. Viswanathan,
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advs., A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan,
M. Ravindranath Reddy, Mrs. Stuti Krishn, Suhas Reddy, A. Mukunda,
L. Joshi, Sidhartha Iyer, P. Venkat Reddy, Abhisekh Reddy, Prashant
Tyagi for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Hasan Murtaza and Ravinder Kumar, Advs. for the Impleaders.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This court, in Islamic Academy of Education and another
vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697, directed the
establishment in each State, of a Committee to regulate the fee structure
in unaided minority and non-minority educational institutions. The
Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional
Courses offered in Private Unaided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") were framed under Section 15
read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Telangana Educational Institutions
(Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Under Rule 4(v), the Committee
is required to communicate the fee structure determined by it to the
State Government for notification. The fee structure so notified, inter
alia for the B.E. and B.Tech courses, for the block period 2016-17 to
2018-19, on a challenge made by the respondent institutions did not meet
the approval of the learned Single Judge. The matter was remanded to
the Committee. On a reconsideration, the Committee granted some
escalation, which was again challenged. Opining that the fixation was
not proper, the learned Single Judge proceeded to fix the fee structure to
his satisfaction. Aggrieved, the State of Telangana and the Fee Regulatory
Committee assailed the same unsuccessfully before the Division Bench.
The parent's association has also assailed the impugned orders directly
before this Court, after having been granted leave to do so. Thus, the
appeals.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
3. Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Telangana, submitted that the Telangana Admission and Fee
Regulatory Committee constituted under the Rules (hereinafter referred
to as "TAFRC") has framed detailed guidelines under which the private
unaided professional institutions were required to submit fee proposals
for the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19. The guidelines lay down an
elaborate procedure with regard to the requisite information required to
be submitted by an institution in support of the proposal, the factors to be
considered by the TAFRC, the manner of consideration in arriving at a
balanced fee structure, keeping in mind the interest of the students as
also the educational institutions, to ensure that there was no profiteering
or capitation fee. The Committee is headed by a retired High Court
Judge, and comprises various domain experts from different fields with
necessary expertise. The recommendations of the TAFRC with regard
to the fee structure therefore ought not to have been interfered with by
the High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review by substituting
its own view over that of the TAFRC to redetermine the proper fee
structure. The fee structure for the three-year block period vide GOM
No.21 dated 04.07.2016 was initially determined by the TAFRC at Rs.
86,000/- and Rs. 91,000/- for the respondent institutions, which after
remand by the High Court was uniformly redetermined at Rs.97,000/-
per student on 04.02.2017. The TAFRC did not act arbitrarily by declining
to take into consideration relevant materials, or relied on extraneous
materials collected behind the back of the respondent institutions. The
TAFRC acted in consultation with the respondent institutions, including
seeking clarifications from them. The High Court did not find that the
TAFRC had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the
guidelines or in violation of any basic principles of accounting and
procedures. The fact that after remand the TAFRC may have adopted
a different methodology to determine 10% inflation and 15% furtherance
for the entire block period cannot be construed as arbitrariness. Merely
because in the opinion of the High Court another view could also have
been taken, cannot justify the usurpation of the jurisdiction of the TAFRC
by the High Court.
4. The mere fact that the determination of the fee structure by
the TAFRC has been held to be of a quasi-judicial nature, amenable to
challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution, did not vest in it the
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
nature of an adversarial dispute between the TAFRC and the respondent
institutions. The disallowance of certain claims, the genuineness of which,
did not meet the approval of the expert committee, does not render the
fee fixation arbitrary.
5. Learned senior counsel Shri F.S. Nariman, appearing on behalf
of the respondent institutions, submitted that the three-year block period
was now over, and the actual expenses are available. The respondent
institutions, on the fee structure as approved by the TAFRC, would land
up with a huge financial deficit. The fee structure of Rs.1,60,000/- and
Rs.1,37,000/- as fixed by the High Court would almost allow a break
even for the respondent institutions. The TAFRC, for the accepted
expenditure of the base year in the previous block period recommended
a fee structure of Rs.1,15,400/-. Ironically, despite having accepted
increased audited expenditure of Rs.29.26 crores, astonishingly the fee
structure of Rs.97,000/- only has been recommended. 10% inflation
and 15% furtherance in accordance with the methodology of the TAFRC
for the block period justifies fees of Rs.1,58,675/- per student. The
claim of the institutions was reasonable considering the expenses of
equivalent government colleges in the State and the subsidy they get
from the State, unlike which the respondent institutions have only fees to
fund their expenses. The State was also not reimbursing the necessary
fee with regard to those students whose parents did not have an annual
income of Rs.2 lakh per year.
6. The submission on behalf of the parents association was that
the mere giving of an undertaking to abide by the final decision cannot
operate as an estoppel preventing challenge to the fee structure as
determined by the High Court.
7. We have considered the respective submissions. A brief
recapitulation of the essential provisions and facts would be necessary
for better appreciation.
8. Rule 3(i) provides for the constitution of the TAFRC which
shall have a term of three years from the date of constitution under Rule
3(iii). The TAFRC as prescribed under Rule 3(ii) is headed by a retired
High Court Judge and other members as provided therein. The 2006
Rules were modified on 22.07.2015 by GOMs. No.26. The present
constitution of the Committee is as follows:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
The Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) shall
consist of the following: -
9. Rule 4 deals with fee fixation and provides for examination by
the TAFRC of the proposed fee structure submitted by an educational
institution. Rule 4(ii) vests power in the TAFRC to decide whether the
proposed fee structure submitted was justified or not and amounted to
profiteering or capitation fee. Rule 4(ii) and 4(iv) require the TAFRC to
take into consideration the following factors for prescribing the fees.
"4(ii) The AFRC shall decide whether the fees proposed by the
institution is justified and does not amount to profiteering or charging
of capitation fee.
4(iv) The AFRC shall take into consideration the following factors
while prescribing the fee:
a) the location of the professional institution;
b) the nature of the professional course;
c) the cost of available infrastructure;
d) the expenditure on administration and maintenance;
(i)
Retired High Court Judge
Chairman
(ii)
One academic expert on technical
education
Member
(iii)
One
academic
expert
on
medical
education
Member
(iv)
One finance expert
Member
(v)
One legal expert
Member
(vi)
One Vice-Chancellor
Member
(vii)
One representative from Govt. Finance
Department
Member
(viii)
The
Chairman,
Telangana
State
Council of Higher Education
Member
(ix)
One representative of All India Council
of
Technical
Education/Medical
Council
of
India/Bar
Council
of
India/National
Council for Teacher
Education (as the case may be)
Member
(x)
Any special invitee as decided by the
Chairman
Member
(xi)
The
Principal
Secretary/Secretary
representing
the
Education/Health,
Medical & Family Welfare Department
Member
Secretary
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
e) a reasonable surplus required for the growth and development
of the professional institution;
f) the revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in
respect of students belonging to schedule castes, schedule tribes
and whenever applicable to the socially and educationally backward
classes and other economically weaker sections of Society, to
such extent as shall be notified by the Government from time to
time.
g) any other relevant factor."
10. The guidelines framed by the TAFRC under Rule 3(vii) for
submission of the proposed fee structure by an institution are detailed
and elaborate. It is therefore considered necessary to reproduce the
same for better understanding and appreciation of the functioning of the
TAFRC.
"TELANGANA ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY
COMMITTEE (TAFRC) GUIDELINES
For Furnishing fee proposals by Private Un-aided Professional
Institutions in the State of Telangana for the block period 20162017 to 2018-2019.
As per the provisions of Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, the
collection of capitation fee by Private Unaided Professional
Institutions by whatever name is illegal.
The Institutions shall submit audited statements of income and
expenditure, audited balance sheets and requirements for the
developmental needs for the immediately preceding year 2014-15
and also particulars of expenditure incurred on salaries and
infrastructure and other particulars (with supporting bills, vouchers
or receipts etc.) with projected figures for 2015-16.
Any fee proposals in respect of Private Unaided Professional
Institutions have to be evaluated keeping in view the above noted
cardinal principles.
It is therefore necessary that the fee proposals furnished by the
Private Unaided Professional Institutions have to be evaluated
based on the income and expenditure of the institutions as well as
the Societies/Trusts under which umbrella the said institutions are
established.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
The fee proposals the following principles will be considered for
adoption keeping in view the interest of both the institutions as
well as the student community.
a.
All the required financial information should be submitted as
per the Mercantile (Accrual) System of Accounting. Financial
information submitted in any other system of accounting will
not be treated as the information provided by the institution
and the same will not be considered for the purpose of
evaluation.
b.
If an institution previously followed any other system of
accounting and for the purpose of fee fixation has migrated
to the Mercantile (Accrual) System of Accounting, all the
expenditure which pertains to the financial years 2014-15 and
2015-16(projected) only shall be taken into account while
preparing the financial statements/information to be submitted
to the Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee
(TAFRC).
c.
The fee shall be fixed based on the revenue expenditure
including depreciation on the Assets of the institution.
In order to fix the fee structure for the block period 2016-17 to
2018-19 information given the following schedules will be taken
into consideration.
Reference
Details to be furnished in the schedule
Schedule-1
Details of Fee Collections for all the Programmes in
the Institution for the Financial Year 2014-2015 &
2015-16.
Schedule-2
Income & Expenditure Statement of the Institution for
the financial years 2014-2015 & 2015-16.
Schedule-3
Income & Expenditure Statement of the Society for
the financial years 2014-2015 & 2015-16.
Schedule-4
Eligible Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the
institution (including complete employee details)
Schedule-5
Other Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid by the
institution (including complete employee details)
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
Schedule-6
Regular Non-Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid
by the institution (including complete employee
details)
Schedule-7
Contract Non-Teaching Staff Salaries & Arrears paid
by the institution (including complete employee
details)
Schedule-8
Statement of Administrative & Other Expenses of the
institution for the Financial Year 2014-2015 & 2015-16.
Schedule-9
Statement of Finance Costs of the institution for the
financial Years 2014-2015 & 2015-16.
Schedule-10
Fixed Assets Schedule for Depreciation
Schedule-11
Statement of Revenue Grants Received & Utilised by
the Institution for the Financial Years 2014-2015 &
2015-16.
Schedule-12
Status of Utilisation of Amounts collected under NRI
Quota
Schedule-13
Status of Utilisation of 10% allowed towards
furtherance of education.
Schedule-14
Details of Fixed Deposits of the institution.
Schedule-15
Details of Loans Received from Societies, Banks
Financial Institution by the Institution.
Schedule-16
Details of Loans Received from Others by the
Institution (Private Loans)
Schedule-17
Statement of Corpus/Capital Fund of the Institution
Schedule-18
Statement of Capital Grants Received & Utilised by
the Institution
Schedule-19
Balance Sheet for Institution
Schedule-20
Balance Sheet for Society
Schedule-21
Legal Expenditure
Schedule-22
Other Information (Students Results etc.)
B) With regards to the expenditure it is broadly categorized as follows:
A) Salary Expenditure:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
 i) Salary expenditure on teaching faculty for 2014-15 & 2015-16,
who are fully qualified as per norms, including the age of retirement,
Teacher student ratio and cadre strength as per the AICTE norms.
ii) Salary expenditure of teaching faculty for 2014-15 & 2015-16,
who are not fully qualified regarding qualifications, age, and staff
beyond prescribed teacher student ratio etc.
iii) Salary expenditure of non-teaching staff for 2014-15 & 201516, who are on regular scales and within the prescribed teaching
and non-teaching ratio, including the age of retirement.
iv) Salary expenditure of non-teaching staff for 2014-15 & 201516, who are on consolidated/contract emoluments or reemployed
beyond the age of retirement and staff engaged beyond the
prescribed teaching and non-teaching ratio.
v) The retirement age shall be 65 years for teaching faculty and
58 years for non-teaching staff and 60 years for last grade servants.
vi) Arrears of previous years' salary should not be included in the
gross salary and should be shown separately.
1) In order to consider the expenditure on teaching and non
teaching staff, the cadre strength fixed by the respective
competent authorities like AICTE/NCTE and Bar Council of
India etc., have to be adopted. Persons who are appointed
over and above this strength shall be shown in the other related
proforma.
2) Faculty norms shall be as per notification issued by respective
competent authorities like AICTE, NCTE etc.
3) In case services of any of the employee is utilized for more
than one programme, such names shall be shown only in one
programme.
4) The teaching faculty should be qualified. Non-qualified
teaching faculty will not be counted/considered for the purpose
of expenditure.
5) PAN number for teaching faculty is a must. In respect of
non-teaching and other staff also, PAN data shall be furnished,
where monthly salary/emoluments/honorarium/remuneration
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
is Rs.25,000 or more. If no PAN/wrong PAN data of them is
given, the expenditure to that extent will be ignored.
6) Aadhar Card Number has to be indicated both for teaching
faculty/non-teaching faculty.
7) Payment of salaries through cheque/bank will only be
considered for expenditure purpose in respect of teaching
faculty. Cash payments shall be subject to production of
evidence.
8) In case of non-teaching staff, the monthly honorarium/salary
remuneration, as the case may be, is more than Rs.25,000/-
shall be made through cheque/bank. Cash payments shall be
subject to production of evidence.
9) Audited financial statements for the period 01/04/2015 to
30/11/2015 and projected financial statements for the period
01/12/2015 to 01/03/2016 will be the basis for calculating the
expenditure for the Institution.
10) Audited financial statements for the financial year 2014-15 &
2015-16 will be the basis for calculating the expenditure for
the Institution.
11) Audited financial statements for the financial years 2014-15
& 2015-16 shall also be furnished along with the fee proposals.
12) Acknowledgement of Returns of income filed with the Income
Tax Department for the Assessment Years 2014-15 &
2015-16 pertaining to the financial years 2013-14 & 2014-15
together with Form-10B Audit Report shall be submitted along
with the fee proposal.
13) Audit report shall contain the signature of the Auditor, his
name, ICAI membership number along with the following
information: -
i) PAN Number of the Auditor.
ii) E-mail id of the Auditor.
iii) Cell No. of the Auditor.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
If the Auditor is a partner of the firm; following additional details
shall be given:
a) Firm ICAI Registration Number
b) PAN Number of the Firm.
c) E-mail id of the Firm.
NOTE:-
(a) If the above said details are not furnished, auditor's report
will not be considered and the fee proposal will be summarily
rejected.
(b) TAFRC has a right to direct the presence of Auditor or seek
confirmation from him/her and the corresponding costs, if
any, shall be met by the Institution concerned. It is the
responsibility of the Institution to secure the presence of the
auditor when required.
In case any institution runs more than one programme all the
expenditure can be bifurcated and reflected in respective Schedules
and the bifurcated expenditure shall be certified by Chartered
Accountant. If clear bifurcation is not given the proposal shall be
rejected.
The entire particulars would be obtained online. However, the
institution shall provide a hardcopy of uploaded information duly
signed by the Auditor/Secretary/Correspondent/Director/Principal
(wherever it is required) by paying prescribed programme wise
processing charges.
To be credited to the "Telangana Admission and Fee Regulatory
Committee (TAFRC)" bearing A/c No. 62436164496, IFSC Code
SBHY0020070, State Bank of Hyderabad, Shantinagar Branch,
Hyderabad.
If a society/trust runs more than one institution, the data/information
shall be furnished institution wise.
Note: All the above schedules can be used for different
programmes by changing the no. of years of course as deemed
fit. For example, 4 years of duration for under-graduate courses
(3 years for Lateral Entry) and 2 years for PG Programmes etc.
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
Note:
Any expenditure that does not directly relate to the student's
education shall not be considered.
Projected expenditure like advertisement of the institution in the
ensuing block period, purchase of equipment, new recruitment to
be made during the block period shall be met from the funds
earmarked for the furtherance of the education.
Percentage of increase between financial year 2014-15 and 201516 will be taken into account to consider expenditure expenditure
pertaining to the financial year 2015-16. However, the Audited
Income & Expenditure for the period 01/04/2015 to 30/11/2015
and Projected Income & Expenditure for the period 01/12/2015
to 31/03/2016 must be submitted.
Schedules for salary payment for the teaching staff will be included
for
(i) Those with qualifications
(ii) Those without qualifications.
Interest on the loan given by the societies to the institutions in
respect of internal funds will not be taken into consideration.
When an institution is running more than one course/programme,
the income and expenditure statement and Balance sheet shall be
bifurcated and bifurcated statement certified by the Auditor shall
be furnished along with the fee proposals. If it is not done, the
proposals will be summarily rejected.
Annual TDS Returns filed in Forms 24Q and 26Q under Income
Tax Act shall be submitted along with the proposal.
Either rent or depreciation will be allowed on the buildings. In
respect of rents the Institution shall obtain Rent Fixation Certificate
from the concerned Executive Engineer of R&B Department and
registered rental Agreement also should be provided.
Any expenditure for which the corresponding income is there shall
be disallowed if no corresponding income is shown.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
Filling up of the column relating fee proposed (course wise) for
the block period of 2016-17 to 2018-19 in the general information
sheet is mandatory.
Procedure to be adopted for filling the proforma:
i)
The Codes allotted by the respective conveners to the institution
shall be used, for example EAMCET code for Engineering
Colleges.
ii) Financial details shall be furnished in Rupees only.
iii) The per student fee proposed should be programme-wise and
for the block period 2016 - 2019 to be shown in the General
Information sheet.
iv) Audited financial statements for the year 2014-15, for the
period 01/04/2015 to 30/11/2015, and also the projected figures
for the period 01/12/2015 to 31/03/2016 must be submitted
duly attested by Secretary/Correspondent of the Society/Trust
shall also to be furnished along with the information relating to
the institution together with the fee proposals. Scanned copy
of the statements shall be furnished online along with the
relevant data.
v) If the institution furnishes incomplete data or fails to remit the
processing charges as prescribed, such proposals will not be
considered and ignored.
The institute has to submit the following documents along with
the fee proposals:
1. Formats duly filled in and signed by the Secretary
Correspondent/Director/Principal of the Institution;
2. Proof of depositing the processing charges;
3. Audited financial Statements for the period 2014-15 and for
the period 01/04/2015 to 30/11/2015 and also the projected
figures for the period 01/12/2015 to 31/03/2016 must be
submitted and duly certified by Secretary/Correspondent of
the Society/Trust.
4. Details of sanctioned intake given by the competent Authority
for each course wise to be submitted.
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
5. Details of current status of affiliation, programme wise has to
be submitted.
6. Other information/documents, if any (specify)
7. The following directions of Hon'ble High court of A.P., in the
D.B. Judgment dt.29.10.2011 in WP's No.16547/2010 and
batch reported in 2012 (3) ALT 686 (D.B.) is brought to the
notice of the Institutions: -
"......an institution which is unresponsive or does not submit
statements of income and expenditure, audited balance
sheets, and requirements for developmental needs for the
immediately preceding year; particulars of expenditure
incurred on salaries and infrastructure and other particulars
as may be specified (with supporting bills, vouchers or
receipts, etc.,) shall not be permitted to collect any fee...."
Accordingly, in case of failure to furnish specified data as
mentioned above or submission of proposal with incomplete data
the institution/college will not be entitled for determination of fee
and will not be allowed to collect any fee from the students for
the block period 2016-17 to 2018-19 in terms of the said judgment."
11. The TAFRC initially fixed an annual fee of Rs.86,000/- and
Rs.91,000/- respectively by notification dated 04.07.2016 for the block
period for the respondent institutions, in consultation with their
representatives, including the seeking of clarifications from them. The
fact that determination of the fee structure was quasi-judicial in nature,
any disagreement by an institution with the fee structure as determined
by the TAFRC cannot ipso facto be termed arbitrary to create a lis, but
may call for further scrutiny in an appropriate case, in exercise of judicial
review. Initially the Single Judge opined that the determination of the fee
structure for the block period suffered from defects and remanded the
matter by order dated 14.11.2016, whereafter the TAFRC fixed a uniform
structure of Rs.97,000/- annually per student for the block period notified
on 04.02.2017 which was again challenged by the respondent institutions.
12. The High Court in disagreement with the fresh
recommendations of the TAFRC, took upon itself to redetermine the fee
structure for the block period at Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.1,37,000/-
respectively, by a process of fresh mathematical calculation and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
accounting, which lay in the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of the
TAFRC. This despite the fact that the TAFRC had already acted in
consultation with the representatives of the institutions including the
seeking of clarifications. The calculation sheet had also been made
available to the institutions. The fact that earlier 10% inflation and 15%
furtherance was calculated on the basis of the gross expenditure
statement, which had now been changed by setting off the income against
expenditure to make the net expenditure the basis of assessment, as
compared to previous years, has been held by the High Court to be a
change in methodology by the TAFRC without prior intimation and
reasons, holding the same to be unjustified. But, the High Court did not
return any finding that the TAFRC had acted contrary to the provision
of the Act, Rules, guidelines, principles of natural justice or basic principles
of economics and accounting, yet it chose to arrive at its own conclusions
on a view which appeared to it to be more fairer, desirable or more
logical. The High Court, has itself held that the procedural fairness and
bonafides of the TAFRC could not be doubted. Furthermore, an amount
of Rs.4,53,54,741.00 was found to be income with no corresponding
expenditure figures and which had been taken into consideration for
determination of the fee structure, was sought to be re-agitated after
remand without corresponding expenditure figures, leading to the rejection
of the same again. The conclusion that inflation and furtherance had to
be allowed separately for each financial year of the block period for that
reason is wholly unsustainable.
13. The High Court also set aside the disallowance of
Rs.1,39,20,000/- with regard to 58 additional teachers in excess of the
356 teachers required according to the norms of the All India Council of
Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") opining that
it pertained to the jurisdiction of the AICTE and not the TAFRC. The
High Court overlooked that the TAFRC inter alia consisted of domain
experts from the AICTE also and the fact that the TAFRC on 22.10.2016
in response to the data submitted by the respondent institutions had already
intimated in context of the disallowance that the relevant staff were not
having the requisite qualifications. The actions of the TAFRC in this
regard were well within its jurisdiction apparent from the guidelines
extracted hereinabove, more particularly B(A) dealing with permissible
expenditure with regard to teacher strength, qualifications etc as per
AICTE norms. The importance of quality teachers, duly qualified, without
VASAVI ENGINEERING COLLEGE PARENTS ASSOCIATION v.
STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS [NAVIN SINHA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
overcrowding hardly needs to be emphasised. A teacher is the bedrock
of the foundation on which the future of the nation is built. The High
Court erred in its casual approach.
14. The High Court has laid much emphasis on the fact that it is
the prerogative of an educational institution to determine its fee structure
according to its needs, and that the TAFRC cannot act to scrutinise the
same like a Chartered Accountant. It needs no reiteration that an element
of justified flexibility has to be given to an educational institution in
determination of the fee structure. But flexibility cannot be equated
with elasticity to suit the desire or claims of an institution.